** Changed in: protracker (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => 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/1769693
Title:
protracker refuses to run due to incorrect ABI check
To
This bug was fixed in the package protracker - 2.3d.r92-1ubuntu0.1
---
protracker (2.3d.r92-1ubuntu0.1) bionic; urgency=medium
* Relax on Linux platform check on patch level SDL ABI (LP: #1769693)
-- Journeyman Sun, 29 Jul 2018 19:39:09 +0200
** Changed in: protracker (Ubuntu
Installed the package from -proposed, can confirm that the application now
works.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <
1769...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Spun up a VM with 18.04 Desktop and verified from proposed.
> Starting now -> setting verified.
>
> FYI: I beg your
Spun up a VM with 18.04 Desktop and verified from proposed.
Starting now -> setting verified.
FYI: I beg your pardon, since it was in a VM UI session I have no easy
copy of the upgrade log that I usually would add.
** Tags removed: verification-needed verification-needed-bionic
** Tags added:
Hello Matjam, or anyone else affected,
Accepted protracker into bionic-proposed. The package will build now and
be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/protracker/2.3d.r92-1ubuntu0.1 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package.
Great Journeyman,
next thing will be a post here by the SRU Team once they got to review it.
That will be a final call for testing from -proposed pocket then.
And once that is good and it has passed the aging period it will be officially
released.
--
You received this bug notification because
Thanks @paelzer and @racb for the follow-up.
I've installed the package from your CI build [0] and it seems to work
for me.
[0]: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/3348
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
Also added an SRU Template to the bug, all done - waiting for the SRU
Teams opinion now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1769693
Title:
protracker refuses to run due to incorrect ABI
Hi,
1. I'm able to reproduce the reported error in a Container (needs ssh -XY
obviously)
2. I did some cleanup on the patch (headers) which was otherwise good
3. a further small cleanup on the version number to match the needs for an SRU
[1]
4. I built it in a ppa [2] and tested it successfully
Just a note to say I haven't forgotten about this. Your latest debdiff
looks pretty good and close to what I'm expecting for this bug. I'm not
supposed to both sponsor and SRU-review, so I'm actively looking to find
someone who can do the sponsorship part here.
--
You received this bug
This is a debdiff for Bionic applicable to protracker_2.3d.r92. I built this in
pbuilder
and it builds successfully, and I installed it, the patch works as intended.
@racb thank you *so much* for the detailed comment, it was really
interesting and helpful to read; thanks for taking the time to
Thank you for volunteering your time to get this bug fixed.
Your diff, with the quilt patch you added, looks functional and does
roughly what you intended. However, as you expected there are a number
of things that need fixing, which I've described in more detail below. I
think the list is quite
The attachment "Updates the sources to latest r126" seems to be a
debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug report
so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If the
attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the
attachment, remove the
This is a debdiff for Bionic applicable to protracker_2.3d.r92. I built this in
pbuilder
and it builds successfully, and I installed it, the patch works as intended.
Updates the sources to latest r126.
** Attachment added: "Updates the sources to latest r126"
> This program *needs* to be updated more than every six month...
I suggest you look into snaps then. You'll have direct control of
updates and Ubuntu users will be able to consume the app directly
through the Software Centre.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
This program *needs* to be updated more than every six month, who
thought that was a good idea for a beta program?? I fix stuff all the
time, this belongs to a system where it's updated often, and people
update it through apt-get or something.
--
You received this bug notification because you
> If anything, this package should be updated more often, same on the
Debian side.
Looks like it is updated regularly already. There is an Ubuntu release
every six months that includes these updates, and
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates describes the policy on
what we will update
On Debian it's being updated often. It's just how stable releases work,
they don't get updates of the version, nothing hinders maintainers to
add cherry picked patches to it though. Olav, don't be upset, I think
some Protracker users on Linux are happy to have it, even if it's not as
much as macOS
> This was fixed A LONG time ago, so you are basically arguing over
outdated code.
I did say that we can cherry-pick the fix once it is upstream. If
someone can volunteer to provide a fix for that, we can land the fix
both development and stable releases of Ubuntu and the problem will be
Yes, I agree to that. If anything, this package should be updated more
often, same on the Debian side.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1769693
Title:
protracker refuses to run due to
Olav,
thanks for your quick answer to my ticket on sourceforge, I was unaware
of all the backlog concerning this Ubuntu bug.
In my strict personal opinion, in this case the bug is a showstopper for
users, so a package rebuild is appropriate. Further, other microrelease
from the main project -
This was fixed A LONG time ago, so you are basically arguing over
outdated code. This is what happens when someone decides to make an
official Debian/Ubuntu package of a beta program with small changes
happening all the time without major releases. I was sceptical to this
to begin with, but I let
I agree that the correct fix should be to remove the "patch level" check
from the startup code.
I tried opening a ticket on the developer sourceforge page, hoping the
maintainer will notice:
https://sourceforge.net/p/protracker/support-requests/3/
Since I don't want to pollute my workstation
I'm unwilling to sponsor a straight rebuild as then users will get the
expectation that the package will work, and we know that it'll stop
working again in the case of a microrelease update. It'd be a temporary
fix only, and I don't think that matches user expectations for a stable
release given
Well I know how to fix it, just rebuild it :) Can I help somehow? I'm
also on irc... (tarzeau)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1769693
Title:
protracker refuses to run due to
Sorry, I don't have the time to take this on. I'm happy to help and
guide some other volunteer though, since that will help build the
community of developers who can help fix this kind of thing.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
Robie: please fix it, I think there won't be that many microreleases. If
you have a patch for the code, I am willing to add it. Or go ahead a
patch yourself, I can take the patch from ubuntu patch tracker...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
I'm copy pasting your answer to their #protracker irc (ircnet) channel.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1769693
Title:
protracker refuses to run due to incorrect ABI check
To manage
To be clear, we absolutely can fix this in Ubuntu including its stable
releases. I just think that the right fix would be to fix the check
rather than rebuild the package, as that would leave the package open to
future breakage again if, for example, SDL is updated with a
microrelease update.
--
29 matches
Mail list logo
