Public bug reported:
Since I upgraded from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 I have been unable to print
webpages from Firefox, currently at version 17.1.
The print job appears to have been set up correctly, but nothing emerges
from the printer - the job remains persistently in the processing
stage.
I can
This bug is still present in the most recent version of Evolution listed
in the Ubuntu Software Centre (3.2.3) on my 12.04 system.
Is there a more recent version available?
There are also a number of other bugs/faults relating to the printing of
calendars:
1. Although the week starts on Monday
And again in 0.12.3.
I rarely use the export feature, and I'd forgotten about this bug until
it bit me again today, as I collected together a slideshow of winning
entries from our Rotary Club's camera club for a presentation.
The image for each competition are stored in a single directory, and
Public bug reported:
I'm getting very poor results when printing photographs on my Epson
Stylus Photo R1800 - low saturation and unsharp images - since upgrading
from 10.04 to 12.04.
When trying to resolve this using Printing=Printer Properties=Make and
Model=Change, I get an error messsage
Public bug reported:
This happened when I tried to install samba using sudo apt-get install
samba4.
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: samba4 4.0.0~alpha18.dfsg1-4ubuntu2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-27.43-generic-pae 3.2.21
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-27-generic-pae i686
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1032115
Title:
package samba4 4.0.0~alpha18.dfsg1-4ubuntu2 failed to install/upgrade:
subprocess installed post-installation script returned error
Public bug reported:
Description:Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
Release:12.04
Problem is in alsa-driver 1.0.24
I expected the sound to be as good as it was in Ubuntu 10.04, which is
also installed on this computer, but get crackles overlaid on the sound
at random intervals, especially bad if
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1020564
Title:
[USB-Audio - UA-4FX, playback] Underruns, dropouts or crackling sound
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Public bug reported:
Playing back a flash video, got video but no sound.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: pulseaudio 1:1.1-0ubuntu15.1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-25.40-generic-pae 3.2.18
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-25-generic-pae i686
AlsaVersion: Advanced Linux Sound
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1018620
Title:
[USB-Audio - UA-4FX, playback] No sound at all
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: nautilus
I'd previously noticed that when I open a folder of JPG images some of
the images have thumbnails displayed, and some just have an icon with
the letters JPG, and thought it might be related to the different
software being used to create the
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 11:45 +, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
is that still an issue with newer versions?
** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete = Triaged
** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
Importance: Medium = Low
I've gone through the same export sequence several
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:00 +, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
** Tags added: patch-needswork
** Tags removed: patch
I'm not sure what this change of status means - I can confirm that this
bug is still present in Shotwell 0.9.0.
Michael
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:05 +, Omer Akram wrote:
shotwell 0.8.1 is now in Natty
** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged = Fix Released
Thanks Omer.
I'm using 0.7.2 with Lucid Lynx - do I have to upgrade to a later
version of Ubuntu to use 0.8.1?
Michael
--
You
I've just realised that it's necessary to prefix sh to the command
line to ensure that the synchronisation script is called.
There's still one problem in this part of the setup - gtkpod forgets
the sync commands when it's shut down and replaces them with the default
values the next time I insert
Further investigation reveals that there is a file stored on the iPod
(in my case in /media/Michael%20HEN/iPod_Control/iTunes/gtkpod.prefs)
when it is first set up to work with gtkpod, and which isn't changed in
line with subsequent changes made in Edit=Repository/iPod Options.
I edited the
In the hope that my problem would have been solved in a later version, I
downloaded the source for 1.0.0, and compiled and installed it.
Unfortunately the same problem is there - attempts to call the various
sync commands all cause the program to hang, although the
synchronisation works fine if
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: gtkpod
Description:Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
Release:10.04
gtkpod 0.99.14
iPod Classic 160GB
I have edited /usr/share/gtkpod/sync-evolution.sh so that it refers to
my iPod's mount point, and have confirmed that this works correctly when
run
Thanks, Adam.
Now that I understand what's going on, I can ensure I make the RAW
adjustments on the way to GIMP.
Having said that, I don't think it's Shotwell's place to be performing a
file conversion when arranging for an image file to be edited by an
external program. There's no mention of
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: evince
Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
Document Viewer 2.30.3
Adobe Reader 9.4
I've been having trouble printing pdf documents in booklet format using a
script called fp or fprint, which takes input from a ps file and uses
postscript utilities to print an
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: shotwell
Ubuntu Lucid Lynx 10.04 LTS
Shotwell 0.7.2
Working with NEF images from my Nikon D70 camera.
When I view an image in Shotwell and then opt to open it in UFRAW, I
expect to see the unmodified image in UFRAW, but this is not the case,
it
Thanks, Adam.
Accepting that there won't be universal agreement on how a RAW image
should be rendered, would it not be better to pass the RAW image to GIMP
when Open with External Editor is requested, rather than the JPEG
generated by Shotwell, which has by this time thrown away information
held
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:31 +, Jim Nelson wrote:
I think there's any number of ways we can go about doing this.
Michael's ideas are great, but they involve a broader idea of exporting
photos -- being able to customize names and ordering and numbering,
almost like generating a report.
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 00:01 +, Rodrigo Virote Kassick wrote:
Em 10-11-2010 20:52, Jim Nelson escreveu:
I think Brian was merely grooming the ticket and marking that a patch
was available (from Rodrigo). However, that patch is against an older
version of Shotwell and I'd need it to be
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 17:39 +, Brian Murray wrote:
** Tags added: patch
Thanks, Brian.
I'm not sure if this means that you've created a patch or that you plan
to do so - please clarify, and if it's been created tell me where to
find it.
Michael
--
Export doesn't deal with different
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 18:53 +, Jim Nelson wrote:
To make it easier for other people, I'm reposting the links with URL
encoding:
http://rotarycupar.org/download/IMG004%20rescanned%20BAD.jpg
http://rotarycupar.org/download/IMG004%20rescanned%20GOOD.jpg
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: shotwell
Description:Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
Release:10.04
shotwell:
Installed: 0.7.2-1~lucid1
Candidate: 0.7.2-1~lucid1
Version table:
*** 0.7.2-1~lucid1 0
500 http://ppa.launchpad.net/yorba/ppa/ubuntu/ lucid/main Packages
One way of dealing with the problem of duplicate filenames would be to
give the exported files new names, e.g. Export001.jpg, Export002.jpg
etc.
As you'll see above, I'm preparing a presentation from my (recently
imported) archive of 21000 images. Once I've exported the images I use
an add-in to
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: shotwell
I store scanned 35mm film images as IMG001.jpg, IMG002.jpg etc, where
the digits indicate the negative's number. Each film has its own
directory (e.g 1960-1, 1960-2 etc.
I'm collecting together a presentation for a camera club by tagging the
I've been reading about the EXIF standard, and it appears not quite to
match up to that description!
One problem is that the tags are identified by number within the image
file, and different applications attach different descriptions to these
numbers.
What seems clear is that there are three
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: shotwell
At the end of the import process I got the following report:
149 duplicate photos were not imported:
/media/Elements/Pictures/Coolscan2/2001-19/IMG012 2900.jpg
/media/Elements/Pictures/Coolscan2/2001-05/IMG014 2900.jpg
Further investigation of the 149 duplicates photos:
I used Shotwell to import everything in my /media/Elements/Pictures
directory, and got the truncated error report above.
I've now used the File Manager to search the same directory (and sub-
directories) for IMG012 2900.jpg, and although there
Thanks, Jim.
Once the fallback scheme has been implemented, will I have to remove all
affected images from the image library and then re-import them? If
that's the case, I'll lose all the work I've already done in tagging the
files. As the files themselves won't have changed, they'll presumably
As a new Linux user, I've been dipping my toes in the water with various
applications, trying to find the best way to make the transition from
Windows.
My first attempt in the photographic side of things was with f-spot,
which was distributed as part of the standard Lucid Lynx distribution,
and
Looking further into this, I find that although the File Manager appears
to report the date of the scan, it's actually reporting the date of
change of the file - the scanning software has not included the date of
the scan in the EXIF metadata associated with the image.
It would still be helpful
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 17:16 +, Adam Dingle wrote:
Michael,
this is ticketed upstream at http://trac.yorba.org/ticket/1212 . We do
have mixed feelings, however, about using the file time for
sorting/grouping when no EXIF date is present, since we think that for
many photos this time
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 18:39 +, Jim Nelson wrote:
Michael,
The current version of Shotwell (0.7.x) will not notice the change to
the EXIF data and re-sort your photos.
That's what I suspected.
That is planned for the next
release, and code to do that is in trunk today.
There's
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: shotwell
Version 0.72 of Shotwell.
$ apt-cache policy shotwell
shotwell:
Installed: 0.7.2-1~lucid1
Candidate: 0.7.2-1~lucid1
Version table:
*** 0.7.2-1~lucid1 0
500 http://ppa.launchpad.net/yorba/ppa/ubuntu/ lucid/main Packages
38 matches
Mail list logo
