[Bug 1975740] [NEW] ec2-instance-connect fails with cert validation on ubuntu 22.04
Public bug reported: If needed, I can provide more exact steps to reproduce this, but hopefully this will be sufficient. Note that follow identical steps with Ubuntu 20.04 results in a working configuration. Launch an ec2 instance using the latest version of the Ubuntu AMI as returned by this query: aws ec2 describe-images --filters Name=architecture,Values=x86_64 Name=virtualization-type,Values=hvm Name=name,Values="ubuntu/images/*22.04-amd64-server-*" Name=block- device-mapping.volume-type,Values=gp2 --owners 099720109477 At this moment, that is ami-09db26f1ef0a9f406 in my region, us-east-1. Send public key: aws ec2-instance-connect send-ssh-public-key --availability-zone us- east-1a --instance-id i-abcdexample --instance-os-user ubuntu --ssh- public-key file:///home/user/.ssh/id_rsa.pub (Note: results are identical with .ssh/id_ed25519.pub) Attempt ssh ubuntu@ip-addr On the instance, /var/log/auth.log reports a failure. May 25 18:57:25 ip-10-98-1-66 sshd[1549]: AuthorizedKeysCommand /usr/share/ec2-instance-connect/eic_run_authorized_keys ubuntu SHA256:abcdefgexample failed, status 2 Running the failed command as root on the instance shows: C = US, O = "Starfield Technologies, Inc.", OU = Starfield Class 2 Certification Authority error 89 at 4 depth lookup: Basic Constraints of CA cert not marked critical C = US, O = "Starfield Technologies, Inc.", OU = Starfield Class 2 Certification Authority error 92 at 4 depth lookup: CA cert does not include key usage extension error /dev/shm/eic-7MlPua7W/cert.pem: verification failed I'm not sure where this certificate comes from, what's enforcing the key usage extension, etc. I haven't investigated further other than to verify that it's the same whether I use my RSA key or my ed25519 key (in fact, either way, my ssh client offers both keys, I see two log messages, and they both fail the same way) and to verify that it does work on Ubuntu 20.04. Also tried: apt update; apt dist-upgrade; reboot to ensure everything is up to date, verifying that ca-certificates is installed. If I use a keypair, I can log in just fine. To reproduce this for above, I launched the instance with a key pair, then moved .ssh/authorized_keys out of the way to see the failure. Please let me know if there's any other information I should supply or anything else you would like me to try. ** Affects: ec2-instance-connect (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1975740 Title: ec2-instance-connect fails with cert validation on ubuntu 22.04 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ec2-instance-connect/+bug/1975740/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1964707] [NEW] please sync qpdf 10.6.3
Public bug reported: qpdf 10.6.3 is in debian unstable with no blockers other than age. It is a bug-fix only release. The two code-facing changes are fix to allow correct handling of PDF 2.0 native UTF-8 strings and a fix to appearance stream generation when "0 Tf" appears in "/DA". ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1964707 Title: please sync qpdf 10.6.3 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1964707/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1960924] Re: qpdf 10.6.2 not syncing (freeze exception?)
Thanks for the clarification. What is the last date for uploading 10.6.3 before final freeze? There is one small bug fix on main for appearance stream generation that I might want to release, but I'll wait and see if anything else shows up. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1960924 Title: qpdf 10.6.2 not syncing (freeze exception?) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1960924/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1960924] Re: qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing?
All regressions have been resolved now, and it seems to me like it's going to automatically migrate, but I'm not sure whether we missed the window to do so without a freeze exception. As far as I can see, the freeze date was February 19. I think the pikepdf upload that resolved the (false) regressions was February 20. If possible, consider this to be a freeze exception request (if needed). Hopefully the above is adequate justification. 10.6.2 is a relatively small change from 10.5.0 in terms of functionality, but it adds a number of new interfaces to the API and, most importantly, adds some documentation and preprocessor symbols designed to ease the transition to qpdf 11.0, which will switch shared pointer implementations that may require source changes in some rare cases. I released qpdf 10.6 two weeks before freeze to ensure it would make the cut, but then there were delays because of pikepdf test failures that weren't real problems, just reliance on previously incorrect functionality from qpdf. Over 10.5, 10.6 adds a number of fixes to character encoding issues (which is what caused the pikepdf test failures) and also makes it possible to use the C API to do a number of things that could previously only be done with the C++ API. Bottom line: this is a much better version to be in an LTS release than 10.5.0. ** Summary changed: - qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing? + qpdf 10.6.2 not syncing (freeze exception?) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1960924 Title: qpdf 10.6.2 not syncing (freeze exception?) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1960924/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1960924] Re: qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing?
It helps. Thanks. I just released 10.6.2, and pikepdf 5.0 is also being released hopefully today to get the two back in sync. Hopefully no further manual action will be required. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1960924 Title: qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing? To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1960924/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1960924] Re: qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing?
There will definitely be a 10.6.2 in the next day or two. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1960924 Title: qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing? To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1960924/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1960924] [NEW] qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing?
Public bug reported: I'm noticing that qpdf-10.6.1 is not syncing from Debian even though, as far as I can see, automatic sync freeze has not yet happened. There are some major changes in 10.6 that I would really like to get into Ubuntu because they include transitional code to help users migrate to qpdf 11. Is there something that needs to happen for this to sync? I don't want to miss the window. At this time, there are test failures in pikepdf because of a bug fix to qpdf in transcoding. We have determined that these test failures don't indicate a serious problem with either qpdf or pikepdf -- they are basically that pikepdf had some tests that were depending on incorrect qpdf functionality. For details, see https://github.com/pikepdf/pikepdf/issues/303 The pikepdf author is aware of the upcoming Ubuntu 22.04 freeze and is trying to get a fix in in time, but I'm hoping we can avoid getting into a situation where we miss the bus. There's a chance I might release 10.6.2 to fix one other minor transcoding issue, but I don't consider the issue to be important enough to justify a release. But if the pikepdf author wants a release to simplify his testing, I will do it. ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1960924 Title: qpdf 10.6.1 not syncing? To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1960924/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1918729] Re: please sync qpdf 10.3.1-1 from debian experimental
Makes sense. Hopefully ubuntu is looking either at only the supported architectures or only the ones that it uses itself. In the former case, looks like everything's built but mips64el which appears to be building now, so hopefully it's not much longer. If I'm lucky, 10.2.0 and 10.3.0 won't make it into anyone's releases. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1918729 Title: please sync qpdf 10.3.1-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1918729/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1918729] Re: please sync qpdf 10.3.1-1 from debian experimental
Thanks. I don't know if there's a way for me to know when your utility can find it. I wait until I get the email from debian that the package has been accepted before posting this, but apparently that's not quite enough. Eventually debian will release, Ubuntu will release, and automatic syncs will resume. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1918729 Title: please sync qpdf 10.3.1-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1918729/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1918729] [NEW] please sync qpdf 10.3.1-1 from debian experimental
Public bug reported: 10.3.1 includes a very small but important fix to a bug that would cause qpdf 10.3.0 to reject certain valid files when splitting pages. I also added a check for exceptions that will make future bugs of this type (if any) just generate warnings instead of blocking the whole operations in hopes of not needing to do any emergency releases any time soon even if this wasn't the "last bug." ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1918729 Title: please sync qpdf 10.3.1-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1918729/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1917906] Re: please sync qpdf 10.3.0-1 from debian experimental
This is a bug-fix release. It contains only two changes: correction of a very old bug (from 2.3.0 released in 2011) involving references to replaced objects and a more significant series of fixes to the form field enhancements in 10.2.0, which turned out to be incorrect and were creating PDF files that were missing fields in the document-level form dictionary. It is called 10.3.0 because I had to add new methods to the public API, and qpdf uses semantic versioning. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1917906 Title: please sync qpdf 10.3.0-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1917906/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1917906] [NEW] please sync qpdf 10.3.0-1 from debian experimental
Public bug reported: Sorry to do this again so soon, but I released qpdf 10.3.0 and uploaded to debian experimental. I have gotten the email from debian indicating that the package has been accepted, and it is visible on qa.debian.org, so hopefully it's "there" for purposes of doing the sync. If not, give it a few hours. :-) Thanks for helping to keep qpdf updated in Ubuntu! ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1917906 Title: please sync qpdf 10.3.0-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1917906/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1916658] Re: please sync qpdf 10.2.0-1 from debian experimental
Great, thanks! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1916658 Title: please sync qpdf 10.2.0-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1916658/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1916658] Re: please sync qpdf 10.2.0-1 from debian experimental
I just uploaded it. I can ask again in a couple of days. I'll put a reminder for tomorrow to check status. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1916658 Title: please sync qpdf 10.2.0-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1916658/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1916658] [NEW] please sync qpdf 10.2.0-1 from debian experimental
Public bug reported: Since debian is in freeze, I uploaded qpdf-10.2.0-1 to experimental. I know unstable syncs automatically to Ubuntu, but I'm not sure I have to request a sync from experimental or if this is the way to do it. In any case, it would be great if we can pull qpdf-10.2.0-1 from experimental into the current release. Thanks! ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1916658 Title: please sync qpdf 10.2.0-1 from debian experimental To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1916658/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1564249] Re: Cannot print a PDF with AcroForms using fit-to-page
I think this bug can be closed now, right? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1564249 Title: Cannot print a PDF with AcroForms using fit-to-page To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1564249/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1753621] Re: FeatureFreeze exception
qpdf 8.0.2 is released, on github and sourceforge, and uploaded to debian unstable. It should be visible momentarily. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1753621 Title: FeatureFreeze exception To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1753621/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1753621] Re: FeatureFreeze exception
As far as I know, 8.0.0 contains everything Sahil and Pranjal need. I have finalized 8.0.2 and am building the releases now. It takes over an hour because of that other OS that some people run. I should have 8.0.2 in debian within a few hours. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1753621 Title: FeatureFreeze exception To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1753621/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1753621] Re: FeatureFreeze exception
Acknowledged. I will try to get 8.0.2 out today and will update this ticket when uploaded. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1753621 Title: FeatureFreeze exception To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1753621/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1753621] [NEW] FeatureFreeze exception
Public bug reported: I am requesting an exception to the FeatureFreeze for Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. I would like qpdf 8.0.1 to be synced from debian. I am the upstream author of qpdf and the debian maintainer. I released 8.0.0 with the explicit goal of beating the 18.04 feature freeze. It was released and uploaded to debian on February 25. Then I realized 8.0.1 a few days later (March 4) with a few very small additional enhancements. I came to learn that 8.0.0 was not synced before the deadline, so I am requesting a freeze exception. You can find 8.0.0 in debian testing and 8.0.1 in unstable. I was planning on releasing 8.0.2 with another one- line change. The changes from 8.0.0 to 8.0.2 are not fixes to bugs in 8.0.0. Both releases include small additional enhancements. For now, I am request sync of 8.0.1, which is the latest version in debian. The qpdf package has a very strong record of stability. The principle changes in 8.0.0 were source-compatible but non-binary-compatible changes to support more advanced handling of PDF files at the lexical layer. These changes are required to support some Google summer of code work toward handling PDF forms in files being printed. qpdf is used as the backend for cups-filters. Additionally, qpdf 8.0.0 includes fixes that allow a wide range of incorrect PDF files that break in 7.1.1 to be processed as it handles more cases as recoverable rather than fatal errors. 8.0.1 adds the additional enhancement of allowing PDF files with checksum errors in their compressed data to be processed. The risk to allowing qpdf 8 into 18.04 is minimal as qpdf has a very thorough regression test suite, and all the changes are backward compatible at the source level. The advantages of having qpdf 8 in 18.04 include handling of a wider range of incorrect files for printing and opening the door to a backport of the form handling capabilities in cups-filters should that be desired. If possible, I would like to request an exception for 8.0.2, which I have not yet released. 8.0.2 includes only one small additional enhancement: better recovery of files that have loops in the cross reference table. Most readers can't handle such files well anyway, but evince can, and this would enable successful printing of such files from evince. It's a one line change + test suite updates. I have not released 8.0.2 but could do so at any time. ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Attachment added: "upstream ChangeLog from 7.1.1 through 8.0.1" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1753621/+attachment/5070340/+files/qpdf-8.0.1-changes -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1753621 Title: FeatureFreeze exception To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1753621/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1744764] [NEW] Please sync qpdf 7.1.0 from debian unstable
Public bug reported: If possible, please sync qpdf 7.1.0-1 from debian unstable for Ubuntu 8.04. This is binary compatible with 7.0.0, which is currently in Ubuntu. I thought this happened automatically, so forgive me if this report is superfluous. qpdf 7.1.0 has been in debian unstable for a week and has migrated to testing already. ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1744764 Title: Please sync qpdf 7.1.0 from debian unstable To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1744764/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1670730] Re: pdftopdf "inflate data - incorrect data check" with certain PDFs
The latest version of qpdf in github is able to process the attached file now. When 7.0.0 is released later this summer, it should be able to handle this file and many with similar errors. Thanks. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1670730 Title: pdftopdf "inflate data - incorrect data check" with certain PDFs To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1670730/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1564249] Re: Cannot print a PDF with AcroForms using fit-to-page
I'll have to study it. Sorry, I have been quite starved for time to work on qpdf. I would like to fix this, but I can't commit to a timeframe. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1564249 Title: Cannot print a PDF with AcroForms using fit-to-page To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1564249/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1582776] Re: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large
Yes, I am able to boot an r3.large instance using this kernel, and I see the correct number of CPUs. My procedure, in case anyone else wants to reproduce it, was to boot up from the latest test AMI (ami-c1cb23ac), sudo dpkg -i ./linux-headers-4.4.0-21* linux-image-* as downloaded from your link, and manually edit /boot/grub/grub.cfg to put this kernel first since it is an earlier version than 4.4.0-22, which is what was previously installed. I rebooted to make sure I got the new kernel and that the m4.large still worked. Then I stopped the instance, changed its instance type to r3.large, and started it. It came up fine, and /proc/cpuinfo shows the expected number of CPUs. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1582776 Title: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1582776/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1582776] Re: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large
I will test it and post results here. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1582776 Title: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1582776/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1582776] Re: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large
I know it works on c4 and m4 instance types. Those are the only other ones I've tried. To test this kernel on r3, I'd probably have to launch an instance on m4, upgrade the kernel from above, create a new AMI, and try running that on r3. I'm in major crunch right now, so I can't stop what I'm doing to do that, but I can try to squeeze it in while I'm waiting for other stuff to run, etc. We're upgrading our infrastructure to 16.04 and, for now, I'm just staying away from the r3 instances, but it will be important for us to support them at some point. I believe I may have misspoken about r3 supporting PV. c3 supports both PV and HVM. r3 only supports HVM. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1582776 Title: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1582776/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1582776] [NEW] HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large
Public bug reported: **NOTE** The additional information attached to this bug report is for my laptop and does not apply to this bug report. Using ubuntu-bug, I'm not sure how to control this. Using the debian bug tool, I would have just edited the file If you attempt to launch an ec2 instance using IMAGE ami-c1cb23ac099720109477/ubuntu/images-testing/hvm-ssd /ubuntu-xenial-daily-amd64-server-20160516.1 099720109477available public x86_64 machine on an instance of type r3.large, the kernel doesn't boot. You get output such as the attached log (kernel-ami-c1cb23ac.log). You get essentially the same result if you try to launch an image from ami-840910ee which is the AMI you get from http://cloud- images.ubuntu.com/locator/ with the search string "16.04 hvm us-east ssd" and picking the latest version. HVM is supposed to work on r3.large. We have used this successfully with Ubuntu 12.04, 14.04, and 15.10 and also with CentOS 5, 6, and 7. r3.large is supposed to work with both HVM and PV. We have no problems with this AMI on m4 or c4 instances which only support HVM. ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 16.04 Package: linux-image-4.4.0-22-generic 4.4.0-22.40 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 4.4.0-22.39-generic 4.4.8 Uname: Linux 4.4.0-22-generic x86_64 ApportVersion: 2.20.1-0ubuntu2 Architecture: amd64 AudioDevicesInUse: USERPID ACCESS COMMAND /dev/snd/controlC0: ejb 14140 F pulseaudio Date: Tue May 17 11:06:11 2016 HibernationDevice: RESUME=UUID=1c991c18-29ed-4f63-b481-89ef40b91b94 InstallationDate: Installed on 2016-04-22 (24 days ago) InstallationMedia: Xubuntu 16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus" - Release amd64 (20160420.1) IwConfig: docker0 no wireless extensions. enp0s3no wireless extensions. lono wireless extensions. Lsusb: Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0003 Linux Foundation 3.0 root hub Bus 001 Device 002: ID 80ee:0021 VirtualBox USB Tablet Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub MachineType: innotek GmbH VirtualBox ProcFB: 0 vboxdrmfb ProcKernelCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-4.4.0-22-generic root=/dev/mapper/jblin0-root_16_04 ro quiet splash RelatedPackageVersions: linux-restricted-modules-4.4.0-22-generic N/A linux-backports-modules-4.4.0-22-generic N/A linux-firmware1.157 RfKill: SourcePackage: linux UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install) dmi.bios.date: 12/01/2006 dmi.bios.vendor: innotek GmbH dmi.bios.version: VirtualBox dmi.board.name: VirtualBox dmi.board.vendor: Oracle Corporation dmi.board.version: 1.2 dmi.chassis.type: 1 dmi.chassis.vendor: Oracle Corporation dmi.modalias: dmi:bvninnotekGmbH:bvrVirtualBox:bd12/01/2006:svninnotekGmbH:pnVirtualBox:pvr1.2:rvnOracleCorporation:rnVirtualBox:rvr1.2:cvnOracleCorporation:ct1:cvr: dmi.product.name: VirtualBox dmi.product.version: 1.2 dmi.sys.vendor: innotek GmbH ** Affects: linux (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: Confirmed ** Tags: amd64 apport-bug xenial ** Attachment added: "kernel-ami-c1cb23ac.log" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1582776/+attachment/4664747/+files/kernel-ami-c1cb23ac.log -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1582776 Title: HVM/SSD Xenial AWS AMI doesn't launch on r3.large To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1582776/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1564249] Re: Cannot print a PDF with AcroForms using fit-to-page
If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like there's no short-term change to qpdf required. Is that correct? I'm thinking doing this type of flatting in qpdf is probably out of scope, but in any case, I wouldn't have time to work on it any time soon. I haven't studied interactive forms enough to know exactly what would be involved. There are certainly limitations of just directly printing PDF, and it's unlikely that qpdf or a filter that only does structural transformation will ever be able to handle all these kinds of issues. If I've misread this and there is something expected to be done with qpdf in the short term, please clarify so I don't inadvertently decide not to do something that needs to be done. Thanks. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1564249 Title: Cannot print a PDF with AcroForms using fit-to-page To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1564249/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1521828] [NEW] flickr_upload can't locate object method "sign_args" via package "Flickr::Upload"
Public bug reported:
When I run
$ flickr_upload --tag qtest x0.jpg
I get the error:
Uploading x0.jpg...Can't locate object method "sign_args" via package
"Flickr::Upload" at /usr/share/perl5/Flickr/Upload.pm line 234.
The following super-obvious patch resolves the issue. I'm not sure
how/why this is needed. Perhaps the versions of libflickr-upload-perl
and libflickr-api-perl are out of sync? Maybe the API package changed
sign_args to _sign_args to emphasize that it is an internal function.
--- Upload.pm~ 2014-07-24 14:36:30.0 -0400
+++ Upload.pm 2015-12-01 21:21:28.169628392 -0500
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
delete $args{photo};
# HACK: sign_args() is an internal Flickr::API method
- $args{'api_sig'} = $self->sign_args(\%args);
+ $args{'api_sig'} = $self->_sign_args(\%args);
# unlikely that the caller would set up the photo as an array,
# but...
Other information:
lsb_release -rd
Description:Ubuntu 15.10
Release:15.10
apt-cache policy libflickr-upload-perl
libflickr-upload-perl:
Installed: 1.40-1
Candidate: 1.40-1
Version table:
*** 1.40-1 0
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ wily/universe amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
apt-cache policy libflickr-api-perl
libflickr-api-perl:
Installed: 1.18-1
Candidate: 1.18-1
Version table:
*** 1.18-1 0
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ wily/universe amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
** Affects: libflickr-upload-perl (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1521828
Title:
flickr_upload can't locate object method "sign_args" via package
"Flickr::Upload"
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libflickr-upload-perl/+bug/1521828/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1521828] Re: flickr_upload can't locate object method "sign_args" via package "Flickr::Upload"
I verified that this problem does not occur with the version of the package from xenial. If I download that manually and install it, everything works fine with the other versions from wily. So this problem only affects the wily version and has already been corrected upstream and in xenial. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1521828 Title: flickr_upload can't locate object method "sign_args" via package "Flickr::Upload" To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libflickr-upload-perl/+bug/1521828/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
Having qpdf able to treat strings as names would be a pretty small enhancement and would probably improve its ability to handle a whole category of broken files. I'll try to work this in for the next update. Thanks for providing this detailed summary of the problem. Very helpful. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/issues/45 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
Does your problem happen with 5.1.2-3? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
Sorry for the long delay. I have uploaded 5.1.2-3 to experimental. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
Debian is in freeze, but I could upload to experimental and ubuntu could sync from there if that works. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
The problem is that the root object of the pages tree does not have a /Type key in its dictionary. The PDF spec says that /Type is required and must be /Pages for the root. qpdf could and should handle this particular type of damage or could at least give a better error message for it, but that's the problem in this case. Right now qpdf uses /Type to determine whether a node in the pages tree is a Pages dictionary or Page dictionary, but it could use the presence of /Kids instead, which would probably be a bit more robust since it would handle more types of broken files. It would be a simple change. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1397413] Re: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type
Before I commit this for real, I need to create a test case, but this seems to be a correct fix. ** Patch added: page.diff https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+attachment/4272366/+files/page.diff -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1397413 Title: QPDF: Exception: operation for Name object attempted on object of wrong type To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1397413/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1392048] Re: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary
I haven't tried it myself, but qpdf has few dependencies, and the ones it has are pretty stable, and qpdf itself is binary compatible between 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. My guess is that you if grabbed the libqpdf13 package from Vivid and tried installing it in trusty, it would most likely work fine. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392048 Title: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1392048/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1392048] Re: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary
This is sufficient to fix the problem, I believe. I will pushing a commit with this change to github shortly after I finish ChangeLog updates, etc. I also created a test cases that calls qpdf --show-pages on a file that has a page with no content. I haven't tested in the context of printing, but I believe this should work. Debian is in freeze right now. I can upload a package with this fix and request a freeze exception, but you will be able to sync from unstable. I'm not going to release a new upstream version for this right this minute, but I can do it soon. That will be harder to get through a debian freeze exception even if the new version just contains one line of code difference... ** Patch added: patch against current HEAD https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1392048/+attachment/4260646/+files/page-no-content.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392048 Title: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1392048/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1392048] Re: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary
I have just uploaded 5.1.2-2 to debian unstable. You should be able to sync with that version to get a fix. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392048 Title: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1392048/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1392048] Re: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary
I guess getPageContents should just return an empty vector in that case and the documentation should specify that an empty vector might be returned. This is already the case if /Contents is literally an empty array. Thanks for the triage. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392048 Title: File not printed Exception: unknown object type inspecting /Contents key in page dictionary To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1392048/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1271714] Re: tiff3 is disappearing from debian soon
The only solution is to rebuild those drivers against current libtiff- dev. There's nothing that can provide libtiff4 because libtiff5 is not binary compatible with it. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1271714 Title: tiff3 is disappearing from debian soon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff3/+bug/1271714/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1271718] Re: xerces-c2 will soon disappear from debian
xerces-c2 is now gone from debian's unstable and testing distributions. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1271718 Title: xerces-c2 will soon disappear from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/anon-proxy/+bug/1271718/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1271718] Re: xerces-c2 will soon disappear from debian
Maybe uns can work with libxerces-c-dev instead? Almost all of the things that used libxerces-c2-dev worked fine with libxerces-c-dev because there were very few API changes. I filed the removal request with Debian, but I have no idea when it will be done. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1271718 Title: xerces-c2 will soon disappear from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/anon-proxy/+bug/1271718/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1271714] [NEW] tiff3 is disappearing from debian soon
Public bug reported: (I am the debian maintainer for tiff and tiff3) A transition is nearing completion in debian for tiff, and once it is done, I will be requesting removal of the tiff3 package. However, I don't expect this to happen before the sync freeze for trusty. I don't know if you have a way to do it, but it seems like excluding tiff3, which no longer supplies any dev packages, from trusty might be a good idea as it will reduce by two years the amount of time people have to worry about backporting security fixes. The tiff packages get lots of security bugs filed against them, and it's getting harder to backport these to the 3.x series. At this point, assuming everything successfully builds from source for trusty, there should be no binary packages in trusty that depend on tiff3. ** Affects: tiff3 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1271714 Title: tiff3 is disappearing from debian soon To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff3/+bug/1271714/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1271718] [NEW] xerces-c2 will soon disappear from debian
Public bug reported: (I am the debian maintainer for xerces-c and xerces-c2) There are only three packages left in debian that have build dependencies on xerces-c2, and after my NMU goes through in a few days, there will only be two packages left. Of these, one is not in debian's testing release and the other seems to be dead upstream in its current form. I hope to be requesting removal of the xerces-c2 package in a few days, but I'm not sure whether it will happen in time for the sync freeze for trusty. Given that xerces-c2 is no longer maintained upstream and that the xerces code base does get occasional security updates, it might be worth considering exclusing xerces-c2 from trusty. This will reduce by two years the amount of time anyone has to worry about backporting security issues to it. I don't know if you have a way of doing that or not or even whether you think it's a good idea, but either way, I expect xerces-c2 to disappear from debian soon. I suppose there's a chance that the removal won't happen as soon as I think for some reason, so discretion is advised, of course... ** Affects: xerces-c2 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1271718 Title: xerces-c2 will soon disappear from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xerces-c2/+bug/1271718/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1263706] Re: request sync: icu 52.1 from debian
icu-tools ( ${binary:Version} isn't really appropriate for the debian
package and gives a lintian error since icu-tools is not packaged by the
icu source package. I don't think debian ever had icu-tools. I think I
added libicu-devtools to serve the same function as icu-tools. How
about if I Replace/Break icu-tools ( 52.1-3~)? I think that should
cover you.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1263706
Title:
request sync: icu 52.1 from debian
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/+bug/1263706/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1263706] Re: request sync: icu 52.1 from debian
Okay, 52.1-3 is uploaded to sid. You should see it momentarily. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1263706 Title: request sync: icu 52.1 from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/+bug/1263706/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1263706] [NEW] request sync: icu 52.1 from debian
Public bug reported: (I am the debian maintainer of ICU) Ubuntu trusty still has ICU 4.8, which is pretty old and has lots of bugs that have been fixed in the current release, 52.1. Debian has completed its transition to ICU 52.1. I don't plan on uploading any new upstream versions of ICU prior to the release of Ubuntu 14.04. It would be great both for security and functionality reasons if 14.04 LTS would ship with 52.1 instead of 4.8.1. It looks like your delta is small. If adding the same change to the debian version of the package is not incorrect for debian and would help you, I have no problem with making the change. Either let me know here or file an issue in the debian BTS. Thanks. ** Affects: icu (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1263706 Title: request sync: icu 52.1 from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/+bug/1263706/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1263717] [NEW] requesting sync of tiff from debian
Public bug reported: (I am the debian maintainer of tiff) I just uploaded 4.0.3-7 with a dependency on dh-autoreconf. Hopefully this will allow you to eliminate the delta on this package and go back to matching the version in debian. ** Affects: tiff (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1263717 Title: requesting sync of tiff from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff/+bug/1263717/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1263784] Re: PDF form data is blank when printed with lp
The qpdfview program is not related to qpdf. They just have an unfortunate similarity in their names. There was a bug in qpdf that could cause loss of form data in some cases, but this bug was fixed in qpdf 5.0.0. I don't remember whether 4.2.0 had the fix in it, but I don't think it did. Using qpdfview, I can see the form data on page 7. After using qpdf 5.1.0 to transform the file, I can still see the form data with qpdfview. I can verify that the way form data was saved here would have hit the older qpdf bug that has been subsequently fixed. Also, installing qpdf 5.0.1 would probably not be sufficient to fix this problem since the print filters were linked with an older qpdf. Most likely the solution will be to take a newer cups-filters. You can run ldd /usr/lib/cups/filter/pdftopdf | grep qpdf If you see a version of libqpdf less than libqpdf.so.13, then you are using the version of qpdf that has this known problem, and upgrading to a later version is the only solution. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1263784 Title: PDF form data is blank when printed with lp To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1263784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 1257485] Re: request sync of nip2 and vips from Debian
On 12/06/2013 04:11 PM, Jackson Doak wrote: Please upload a version with the fixed build-depends (now debian is doing to tiff5 transition) and we can sync, that is a lot easier than merging for a week or two I just uploaded vips 7.36.3-3 with the new tiff dependencies. Hopefully this should work fine for Ubuntu where I know you already have libtiff-dev provided by libtiff5-dev. I just changed the build deps for vips to libtiff-dev instead of libtiff5-alt-dev. I'm not sure whether I need to do anything to get Ubuntu to take the latest tiff packages, but I belive this vips should work with what you currently have in addition to what you will get when tiff is resynced. --Jay -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1257485 Title: request sync of nip2 and vips from Debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vips/+bug/1257485/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1257485] Re: request sync of nip2 and vips from Debian
See also bug 1257487, the nip2 sync request. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1257485 Title: request sync of nip2 and vips from Debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vips/+bug/1257485/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1257485] [NEW] request sync of nip2 and vips from Debian
Public bug reported: Note: I am the debian maintainer for vips. The version of vips in Ubuntu is very old. Debian is now up to date again. (Had gotten behind because of wheezy release and libmatio transition.) I believe the Ubuntu changes should be trivial to port forward and should hopefully become unnecessary soon as Debian is finally about to begin the libtiff4 - libtiff5 transition. The version of vips currently in testing (7.36.3-2) is appropriate, though I will be uploading a new upstream version (still based on 7.36) with a small fix in a week or two, so resyncing from unstable is probably more appropriate. ** Affects: vips (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1257485 Title: request sync of nip2 and vips from Debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vips/+bug/1257485/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1257487] [NEW] sync nip2 from debian
Public bug reported: Note: I am the debian maintainer of nip2. Please resync nip2 from debian unstable. The version I just uploaded to unstable, 7.36.4-3, is the right one to take. This version changes the goffice dependency from 0.8 to 0.10, which is one of your changes. Debian still has an older graphviz, but it's possible that upstream has updated their code to support newer graphviz, so you may or may not need that change. You will still need the tiff change, but not for long because Debian is about to start the tiff transition. I have also requested sync of vips, which you can find here (bug 1257485): https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vips/+bug/1257485 These two packages should go together. ** Affects: nip2 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1257487 Title: sync nip2 from debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nip2/+bug/1257487/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1199222] Re: pdftopdf crashed with SIGSEGV
Fixed in 4.2.0-2. 4.2.0-1 was not binary compatible. 4.2.0-2 is binary compatible with 4.1.0. The offending fix that had been in 4.2.0 will be in 5.0.0 instead. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1199222 Title: pdftopdf crashed with SIGSEGV To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups-filters/+bug/1199222/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 923955] Re: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values
For anyone watching, qpdf_4.0.1-2 in debian has had a fix for this problem since February 25. The patch should be easy to backport to the version in 12.10. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923955 Title: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/923955/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 923955] Re: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values
This patch is relative to 4.0.1. I suspect that it will apply cleanly to 3.whatever-you-have with at most offsets. The change is very localized. If you run into any problems, you can post here. I'm subscribed to this bug. ** Patch added: patch to fix this problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/923955/+attachment/3563979/+files/compressed-object.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923955 Title: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/923955/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1036281] [NEW] Sync qpdf 3.0.1-1 (universe) from Debian experimental (main)
Public bug reported: Please sync qpdf 3.0.1-1 (universe) from Debian experimental (main) Changelog entries since current quantal version 3.0.0-2: qpdf (3.0.1-1) experimental; urgency=low * New upstream release -- Jay Berkenbilt q...@debian.org Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:58:29 -0400 ** Affects: qpdf (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1036281 Title: Sync qpdf 3.0.1-1 (universe) from Debian experimental (main) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1036281/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1036281] Re: Sync qpdf 3.0.1-1 (universe) from Debian experimental (main)
The change from 3.0.0-2 is a small bug fix that enables proper parsing of certain PDF files that have scalars not followed by whitespace at the ends of object streams. It also corrects an omission from the 3.0.0 release notes. The bug fixed in this release has been present in all versions of qpdf. It is not related to the new work in 3.0.0, nor is it required for the new functionality of qpdf that is used by the open printing project. However, it is extremely rare that someone reports a bug in qpdf that causes it to fail to process a valid file (this is only the second one reported since April, 2008 when qpdf had its first public release), so it would be beneficial to have this fix in 12.10 in case anyone tries to use the pdf filter on a file that has this property. Such files are probably very rare or else this bug wouldn't have been hiding in qpdf for so many years. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1036281 Title: Sync qpdf 3.0.1-1 (universe) from Debian experimental (main) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1036281/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
On 08/08/2012 07:29 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote: MIR review: * Does not ship a symbols file or use an empty argument to dh_makeshlibs -V. This should be considered, but is not a blocker. Consider it considered. I'm not aware of shipping a symbols file, so it's something for me to learn about and see whether I can apply it to my other packages. That said, I have a release checklist that includes bumping the version in the shlibs file if any new APIs have been added, so my shlibs files are likely to be as tight as needed and not tighter. An automated method for keeping this right is better than a manual one though, so I'll look into it. I'm not sure whether this being a C++ library complicates it as it complicates enumerating symbols in the ldscript (if I understand correctly). Any pointers (especially stack protected ones, oh wait, wrong kind of pointer) would be welcome. Thanks for the detailed review. --Jay -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
qpdf 3.0.0-1 is in debian experimental now. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
For anyone who's watching, qpdf-3.0~rc1-1 is now in debian experimental. Running the test suite is now enabled in the build. Based on the exp buildd logs, it build and passed its test suite on all debian platforms. My plan is to allow a couple of weeks for feedback on the release candidate from a small handful of people who have indicated a desire to test. I will release qpdf-3.0.0 probably in mid-august. Any debian or ubuntu packages that need to the new APIs to support the print filtering work can declare a build dependency on qpdf 3.0~. There will be no non-compatible changes between the release candidate the full release. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
(For the build dependency, of course, I mean libqpdf-dev 3.0~) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
Okay, I'll upload 3.0 final sooner. Is experimental okay, or do I need to upload to unstable in debian? Debian is in freeze right now. I'll aim for August 2 or 3 to upload 3.0 final. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
I'm the author of qpdf. You are certainly correct to be concerned about the security exposure of qpdf, and I'd be the last one to say that it is 100% of any potential for security problems. However I believe that it is in relatively good shape from a security perspective, and I'll briefly outline why I think this is the case. QPDF is very careful with memory management. Almost all of the memory used by QPDF is managed using reference-counted smart pointers. QPDF makes heavy use of a bound-checked buffer class. QPDF rarely reads large amounts of data into memory and, in particular, does not read arbitrary streams from user files into memory at once. The large file tests of QPDF run with a memory footprint much smaller than the size of the largest stream in the file. QPDF has a very thorough test suite with nearly complete code coverage. QPDF actually makes use of an explicit coverage technique I presented a paper on in 2004. Specifically it marks certain parts of the code with a call that essentially checks to make sure a certain condition occurred during the run of test suite. The test suite contains many examples of invalid files, though I admit that most of these are files I specifically created to exercise certain error conditions. Before every release, I run the entire test suite through valgrind and never release if there are any errors. At a previous job, I had access to the Klocwork static analyzer. When I ran qpdf through it, never having previously exposed qpdf to a static analyzer, it only found one real issue (two instances of not exiting after reporting an error that a file couldn't be opened), and one case where it was hard to tell that memory was being properly checked. In the second case, I just clarified the code, but there wasn't actually an error condition. You can see the commit on github: https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/commit/0ded90eff979c0a329736861995b2516139de114. I have tried to code QPDF in a manner that is careful from a security perspective. I would refer you to https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/blob/master/libqpdf/QPDF.cc and the method read_xrefTable. This method reads lines from the input file but adds constraints to make sure it never reads more than 50 bytes per line, thus preventing a file whose xref offset points to a place with extremely long lines from making qpdf allocate a huge amount of memory. When it reads xref entries, it validates each entry against a regular expression and throws an exception if it doesn't match. Only then does it actually trust the offsets. As I read the code carefully, I see that there may be opportunities to force qpdf to try to read outside the bounds of a file by constructing a PDF file with object streams that have invalid offsets. I will audit this part of the code and strengthen it before the next release. In spite of this, qpdf never writes to memory associated with the input file, so causing it to write past a buffer boundary would be very difficult, and I can't think of any way of causing it to take action such as creating a file in the file system, exposing credentials, or anything of that sort. I have a pretty strong background in dealing with security issues in code. I've been programming in C or C++ since 1985, spent a little time working on the Kerberos design and implementation teams between 1988 and 1991, and I am the debian maintainer for tiff and ICU, both of which have relatively regular security issues. Understanding and, in some cases, backporting those security fixes has also improved my understanding of the kinds of pitfalls programmers often fall into. Finally, if there are any security issues found, I will be very responsive in fixing them. So, while adding qpdf to main is not risk-free from a security angle, I think the risks are relatively low, and I believe qpdf is probably in better shape from a security angle than many of the packages already in main. I would be happy to address any specific concerns you might have in this area. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1024435] Re: [MIR] qpdf
For what it's worth, I'll mention also that upstream is also a debian developer since 2005 and is the debian maintainer of the package. qpdf is known to be used in at least three commercial products and was used by a former employer (who enthusiastically supported its open source development) to process millions of PDF documents for a wide range of customers. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1024435 Title: [MIR] qpdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/1024435/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1016987] Re: Sync tiff 4.0.1-8 (main) from Debian unstable (main)
As the debian maintainer of tiff, I would like to see tiff and tiff3 synced. Among other things, this will allow vips and nip2 with bigtiff support to go in. Rather than blocking this on main inclusion of JBIG, I'd suggest modifying it for Ubuntu to omit the jbig dependency. Simply removing libjpeg-dev from the list build dependencies and from the dependencies of the dev packages is sufficient. Can this be considered so that Quantal can have bigtiff support along with the more secure and functional tiff 4.x? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1016987 Title: Sync tiff 4.0.1-8 (main) from Debian unstable (main) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff/+bug/1016987/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 797166] Re: tiffgt not calling glFlush() as appropriate
I see the same problem on my system, and this patch fixes it for me. I'm the debian maintainer of the tiff packages, so I will include this patch and also submit the bug to upstream. The fix will be in Ubuntu next time the tiff packages are synchronized. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/797166 Title: tiffgt not calling glFlush() as appropriate To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff/+bug/797166/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 797166] Re: tiffgt not calling glFlush() as appropriate
Upstream bug report: http://bugzilla.maptools.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2401 It's not a very good bug report, but I think the problem is simple enough that whoever knows that code should be able to judge that it is correct. ** Bug watch added: bugzilla.maptools.org/ #2401 http://bugzilla.maptools.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2401 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/797166 Title: tiffgt not calling glFlush() as appropriate To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff/+bug/797166/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 551763] Re: qpdf 2.0.6 can not be build on 9.10 anymore
The problem was resolved in comments here, and this now applies to a very old version both qpdf and Ubuntu. ** Changed in: qpdf (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/551763 Title: qpdf 2.0.6 can not be build on 9.10 anymore To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/+bug/551763/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 852620] [NEW] Please sync tiff 3.9.5-2 (main) from Debian untable (main).
Public bug reported: I'm not sure whether I need to do this or not, but I just wanted to let you know that I have incorporated all the Ubuntu changes into the debian tiff package, so 3.9.5-2 should be essentially identical to 3.9.5-1ubuntu1. I was thinking it was time to figure out the multiarch changes, but you (Ubuntu) already did it and saved me the trouble. :-) ** Affects: tiff (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/852620 Title: Please sync tiff 3.9.5-2 (main) from Debian untable (main). To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tiff/+bug/852620/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 396025] Re: psnup ignores -p option
Debian psutils 1.17-30 (just uploaded) now incorporates this patch. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/396025 Title: psnup ignores -p option To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/psutils/+bug/396025/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 600618] Re: Missing libxerces-depmod.so symbolic link
This isn't a bug. xerces-c 3.x doesn't supply libderces-depdom at all. That is the deprecated DOM library, and it was dropped in 3.x. For details, see http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/migrate- archive-3.html#Migrateto300 -- Missing libxerces-depmod.so symbolic link https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/600618 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 551763] Re: qpdf 2.0.6 can not be build on 9.10 anymore
oneiros mar...@oneiros.de wrote: 2010/3/30 Jay Berkenbilt e...@ql.org: standards version to 3.8.4. Let me know if you'd like me to make the 2.1.3 packages available somewhere. There may be a 2.1.4 soon anyway based on your padding issue. Jay, I'm new to building debian packages from source. I've managed to install the 2.0.6 from Ubuntu 9.10 and build the packages on 8.04. If you can send me an archive with which I can then try a dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -b, I'd be more then happy to try this for 2.1.3 on 8.04. You can grab this from any debian archive. For example, from here: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/q/qpdf/ you can grab these files: qpdf_2.1.3.orig.tar.gz qpdf_2.1.3-1.dsc qpdf_2.1.3-1.debian.tar.gz The only problem is that Ubuntu 8.04 might be too old to support the newer quilt source format. If it does, you can run dpkg-source -x qpdf_2.1.3-1.dsc cd qpdf-2.1.3 If not, you can instead just run tar xzf qpdf_2.1.3.orig.tar.gz cd qpdf-2.1.3 tar xzf ../qpdf_2.1.3-1.debian.tar.gz This latter set of commands won't apply any patches, but there are no patches in qpdf in debian. (Since I maintain qpdf upstream and for debian, there is not likely to ever be patches in the debian version.) From the qpdf-2.1.3 directory, the easiest way to build is debuild -B -us -uc rather than running dpkg-buildpackage, though dpkg-buildpackage will work fine. The above builds binary only and doesn't try to sign anything. Hope that helps. If not, let me know. --Jay -- qpdf 2.0.6 can not be build on 9.10 anymore https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/551763 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 551763] Re: qpdf 2.0.6 can not be build on 9.10 anymore
The first problem is a gcc 4.4 issue. I'm not sure what the second problem is. I have already uploaded 2.1.3 to debian unstable, but it won't show up until the current ftp-master hardware problems are resolved. No changes were required from the 2.1.2 packaging. I updated standards version to 3.8.4. Let me know if you'd like me to make the 2.1.3 packages available somewhere. There may be a 2.1.4 soon anyway based on your padding issue. -- qpdf 2.0.6 can not be build on 9.10 anymore https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/551763 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 525578] [NEW] suggest syncing debian version: 3.1.0-1
Public bug reported: As debian maintainer for the xerces-c package, I'd like to suggest a Freeze Exception for this package. The version presently in lucid is 3.1.0~rc1-1. This is a release candidate that I put into debian at the specific request of upstream. Given that the final 3.1.0 version has been out for a while and has transitioned to debian's testing release, I think it would be preferable for the Ubuntu lucid release to contain that actual released version rather than the release candidate. There were no bugs reported against the xerces-c package during while the release candidate was in debian, and no bugs have been reported against xerces-c since that time, though a few upstream issues were corrected. It should be a very low-risk upgrade. I am not subscribed to any of the ubuntu mailing lists other than ubuntu-news. I hope this bug report will be sufficient to trigger the sync. ** Affects: xerces-c (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- suggest syncing debian version: 3.1.0-1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/525578 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 370472] Re: Libtiff-3.8.2 is distributed as libtiff4
The number 4 is the soname of the shared library, which is libtiff.so.4. In general, the soname of the shared library is not related to the version number of the package, but is instead a count of the number of times the binary interface to the shared library has changed. Historically, the reason that the debian and ubuntu tiff library is installed as libtiff4 is because, at a particular point in the history of libtiff, there was an accidental application binary interface change introduced in the library. In order to prevent old applications from crashing when the new library was installed, the version number on the library had to be bumped. The maintainers of the libtiff software are aware of this, and when tiff 4.0.0 is eventually released, the shared library version number will be 5, and the package will be called libtiff5. I believe there is bigtiff support in the hopefully upcoming 3.9.0 release of libtiff as well, and this release is backward compatible with the current packages. The tiff maintainers have not yet released version 3.9.0, but as soon as they do, it will appear in debian, from where it will soon migrate to Ubuntu. I hope this helps. I'm the maintainer of the tiff packages for debian, by the way. I don't generally follow bug reports on Ubuntu, but I check in from time to time just to see if there's anything I need to be concerned about. --Jay Berkenbilt q...@debian.org -- Libtiff-3.8.2 is distributed as libtiff4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/370472 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 256330] Re: Evince and EOG display TIFF files flipped
This is not a libtiff bug, and the fact that the tiff file is multipage is not relevant. The problem is with the tiff file headers and with the applications' interpretations of those headers. I believe eog and evince are both misinterpreting the orientation header. To rule out the multipage nature of the image as a source of the problem, you run tiffsplit on the attached image to get separate images for each of the eight pages, called xaaa.tif through xaah.tif. You can display any of those pages with evince or eog and see the same thing, indicating that this doesn't have anything to do with the image being a multipage image. We can observe that the orientation of these tiff files is unusual. To do this, create a normal tiff file using import from ImageMagick. Run import /tmp/a.tif and click on any window. Then run tiffinfo /tmp/a.tiff | grep Orientation You will see Orientation: row 0 top, col 0 lhs This means that the first row of the image is the visual top, and the first column is the visual left. If you run tiffinfo on the attached image file and grep for Orientation, you see the following: Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top Orientation: row 0 rhs, col 0 top All subimages have row 0 rhs, col 0 top, meaning that the first row is the visual right and the first column is the visual top. This is the same as having the image rotated 90 degrees to the right. It seems that both eog and evince are flipping the image horizontally instead of rotating it, and display from ImageMagick is ignoring the orientation field entirely. The only application I've been able to find that actually handles this orientation value is gthumb, which at least the way I have it configured (I know I set some option to obey image orientation because my Canon digital camera uses the jpeg orientation field), does actually show the image rotated 90 degrees to the right. Even gimp doesn't handle this properly. If you run gimp on one of the pages, you get the warning ** (tiff-load:27322): WARNING **: Orientation 6 not handled yet! If you run tiffcp on the file to copy it to another file using the tiff library: % tiffcp AK-LV104e.tif a.tif AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. AK-LV104e.tif: Warning, using top-left orientation. you can observe that libtiff overrides the orientation. The resulting file displays properly with evince and eog and all the other viewers I can find. I'm not sure whether eog and evince, both gnome applications, might be using the same underlying code between the application and libtiff to render the images. In that case, the bug is really against that library, not libtiff. It's also possible that they both interpret the orientation fields in the same way in their own code. More investigation would be required to figure out where the bugs really live. As an interesting experiment, you can determine how different applications interpret orientation by resetting the orientation field in the header using tiffset. The orientation field has tag number 274, which you can tell from the output of tiffdump. To set the orientation of one of the pages to normal 1 orientation, you can run tiffset -s 274 1 xaaa.tif Then you will observe that xaaa.tif displays properly in all viewers. Here are the meanings of the orientation values from the TIFF spec: 1 = row 0 top, col 0 left 2 = row 0 top, col 0 right 3 = row 0 bottom, col 0 right 4 = row 0 bottom, col 0 left 5 = row 0 left, col 0 top 6 = row 0 right, col 0 top 7 = row 0 right, col 0 bottom 8 = row 0 left, col 0 bottom -- Evince and EOG display TIFF files flipped https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/256330 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 256330] Re: Evince and EOG display TIFF files flipped
In case it gets buried in the above comment, here is a workaround for your problem: * The above includes a workaround: run tiffcp your-image.tif new- image.tif. The resulting image, at least in the case of the above attachment, displays properly in all the above mentioned applications. Also, I should mention that, as the debian maintainer of the tiff packages, I very much appreciate that someone took the trouble to report the bug in the debian bug tracking system. This is how I became aware of the issue. I've closed the bug there with comments pending investigation of where the bug actually lives. At the time, I hope someone will again create the appropriate bugs in the debian bug tracking system and/or in the bug tracking systems for the upstream software. -- Evince and EOG display TIFF files flipped https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/256330 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 194295] Re: xpdf viewer renders wrong colors for jpeg encoded images
Last comment: hidden here is actually a bug in whichever viewers were not showing incorrect colors since the problem was in the PDF file, not the viewers. -- xpdf viewer renders wrong colors for jpeg encoded images https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/194295 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 194295] Re: xpdf viewer renders wrong colors for jpeg encoded images
If you want an easy way to look into a PDF file, I recommend my qpdf software, though in this case, you could look at the image dictionary in the PDF file in a text editor. Solving this one required some familiarity with the PDF spec. -- xpdf viewer renders wrong colors for jpeg encoded images https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/194295 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 194295] Re: xpdf viewer renders wrong colors for jpeg encoded images
Hello. I'm just looking over the tiff bugs in ubuntu. I'm the debian tiff maintainer. Sorry you guys spent so much time on this. I was already familiar with this problem. The problem is that tiff2pdf was setting the /ColorTransform field to 0 in /DecodeParams when it should not have been. This problem was fixed upstream in the 4.0 branch (actually now the trunk). I backported tiff2pdf from 4.0.0 to 3.8.2, and that version of tiff2pdf is included in the current tiff packages in debian. -- xpdf viewer renders wrong colors for jpeg encoded images https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/194295 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 161760] Re: Please merge vips 7.15.5-1 from Debian unstable
Um, I'm not sure what it means for this bug to be assigned to me. I have uploaded 7.15.5-2 into debian, but I wasn't planning on taking any specific action on this bug. Hopefully, whoever does this sort of thing in Ubuntu should be able to merge 7.15.5-2 from debian now without having any custom patches. I'm not really involved with Ubuntu other than that I'd like to make my debian packages work in Ubuntu without any extra hassle. If no specific action is required on my part, then no further comment is necessary. -- Please merge vips 7.15.5-1 from Debian unstable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/161760 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 161760] Re: Please merge vips 7.15.5-1 from Debian unstable
I really appreciate this analysis. I will be uploading 7.15.5-2 momentarily with this patch (except, of course, the maintainer fields). Also, I've used python*.* instead of python?.? in the install file, not that I expect to see python 2.10 or 10.0, but it should be fine anyway... -- Please merge vips 7.15.5-1 from Debian unstable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/161760 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 130664] Re: please sync package nip2 from debian unstable (about to transition to testing)
Actually, I think the testing transition should happen in about 9 days depending on its relationship to the openexr long double transition. In case it makes any difference, the nip2 package has been updated for the menu transition - it puts its menu files in Applications/Graphics instead of Apps/Graphics. I don't know how Ubuntu is positioned relative to the debian menu transition. -- please sync package nip2 from debian unstable (about to transition to testing) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/130664 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 35085] Re: Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala
Okay, I confirm that the bug is still present with icu 3.6 in debian sid. -- Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala https://launchpad.net/bugs/35085 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 35085] Re: Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala
For what it's worth, after ICU 3.6 went into debian, openoffice reverted to its internal ICU because of other apparent incompatibilities. I'm not running Ubuntu right now, so I don't know whether Ubuntu has followed. In any case, it's quite likely that this problem is no longer reproducible in ICU with openoffice in Ubuntu. During the fleeting moment during which there was an openoffice in debian that built against ICU 3.6, I tried to open the sample file. I got something that looked neither like the incorrect nor like the correct renderings that were posted here. I don't know Bengali and can't really help further with diagnosis. In any case, just be aware when testing this that openoffice may not be using the ICU package anymore. -- Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala https://launchpad.net/bugs/35085 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 35085] Re: Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala
ICU 3.6 is in debian unstable now. Hopefully openoffice.org built against it will follow soon. Then we can see if this bug is still present in 3.6. -- Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala https://launchpad.net/bugs/35085 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 35085] Re: Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala
ICU 3.6 d02 (beta) is in debian experimental. I am going to see if I can determine whether this bug is there in 3.6. Whoever is interested in this may want to take advantage of this beta period of ICU to see if they can get a patch upstream. -- Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala https://launchpad.net/bugs/35085 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 56100] Re: regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810
This is probably my last update to this bug report as I am now running etch instead of dapper on my laptop and have 100% of desired functionality working. I prefer to be running debian but had been running Ubuntu since it installed and worked more easily in the past, but with this regression and the release of etch debian-installer b3, the balance has shifted. I would still be willing to help test fixes as long as I can do so by booting from a live CD image and installing fixes from there. On the vmware topic, having the video problem fixed helped a lot but not completely. A search on this determined that setting /sys/module/processor/parameters/max_cstate to 1 while running vmware was the rest of the problem. This is mainly for the benefit of someone who finds this bug report searching on google. I'm attaching my xorg.conf from my etch system. The only customizations I did on it from the xorg.conf generated by debian-installer were to comment out the synaptics stuff and to add dontzap. All the important display driver stuff is as detected. It seems like that the problem isn't with the xorg.conf though. -- regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810 https://launchpad.net/bugs/56100 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 56100] Re: regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810
I just tried installing Etch using debian-installer b3, and I have good X11 performance there too. Next time I have time, I'll try to figure out the differences. -- regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810 https://launchpad.net/bugs/56100 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 56100] regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: xserver-xorg For starters, let me state that I am aware that this is really an ATI driver or fglrx driver problem, and not really an xserver-xorg problem. Also, I have read several bugs already that discuss lockups and other issues with the Radeon Mobility M300 chip. My problem is different, and I have not found anything that discusses it. I'm hoping this will boil down to just an xorg.conf change. My problem is that my X11 performance has decreased dramatically since I upgraded from breezy to dapper. For normal operations, X11 performs fine, but there are certain types of operations that are very slow. I don't know whether it's DRI, 2D acceleration, etc. -- I haven't been following xorg developments closely enough to speak intelligently about it! In any case, frozen-bubble and vmware are both intolerably slow, and they were both usable on this machine with breezy and even on my much older and much slower machine which had, of course, completely different hardware. I'm not sure what has changed that has caused my X11 performance to be so slow. I have used the normal ati drivers as detected at the time of installing dapper, and I have also tried fglrx drivers both by downloading the latest version of the proprietary drivers from atitech.com and by installing the slightly older xorg- driver-fglrx package from restricted. In all cases, I have verified that I am actually using the fglrx driver. (I haven't done something like installing the driver and forgetting to change xorg.conf.) I haven't experienced any of the black screen or lockup problems others have reported. I have tried with and without adding the RenderAccel option to xorg.conf. Please let me know what else I should try or what other information I should provide. I will attach my xorg.conf to this bug report once I remove all the changes that didn't work. :-) ** Affects: xorg (Ubuntu) Importance: Untriaged Status: Unconfirmed -- regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810 https://launchpad.net/bugs/56100 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 56100] Re: regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810
I've done dpkg -P --force-depends xserver-xorg, rm /etc/X11/xorg.conf*, apt-get install xserver-xorg to get a completely default xorg.conf. I am attaching this here. This performance is only very slightly worse than what I get if I install the proprietary ATI drivers from ATI's web site using their ati-driver-installer-8.27.10-x86.run script. I run apt-get upgrade today and have dapper-security and dapper-updates in my apt.conf, so I should be up to date with respect to recent packages. My xserver-xorg is 7.0.0-0ubuntu45. My xserver-xorg-driver-ati is 1:6.5.7.3-0ubuntu7. My D810 has a 1280x800 display. lspci -v | grep ATI shows :01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc M22 [Radeon Mobility M300] (prog-if 00 [VGA]) I can provide additional information as needed. Just to be sure I'm not imagining things, I'm going to boot off of my old breezy live CD to make sure that X11 really does perform as I remember there. -- regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810 https://launchpad.net/bugs/56100 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 56100] Re: regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810
I am confirming that this X11 performance problem is not present when I boot off of breezy live. I snarfed the xorg.conf from the breezy live configuration and tried using it. I also tried using vga=771 which was necessary in breezy but not in badger. Neither of these things completely solved the problem, though it seems that loading GLCore instead of i2c might have sped things up a little. I'm attaching the xorg.conf from breezy for reference. Perhaps there was a regression between 6.8.2 and 7.0.0 of xorg? -- regression: poor X11 performance on Dell Latitude D810 https://launchpad.net/bugs/56100 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 35085] Re: Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala
Is anything happening with this? Applying the patch to the icu in debian doesn't impact the rendering of test-case.odt. Debian bug 357137 has been open for some time, and I probably can't resolve it until this problem is resolved. Alternatively, if someone would like to post a proper patch to bug 357137 in debian by sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I will fix the problem there and the change will eventually make it back into the Ubuntu package when Ubuntu resyncs with debian. -- Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala https://launchpad.net/bugs/35085 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 35085] Re: Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala
The automatically generated links above do not point to the debian bug. They point to a bug in this system with the same number should any such bug eventually exist... -- Incorrect Bengali rendering of ra+japhala https://launchpad.net/bugs/35085 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
