From dufresnep at zoho.com Thu Feb 2 01:32:42 2023 From: dufresnep at zoho.com (Paul Dufresne) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 20:32:42 -0500 Subject: main.efi: PE Unknown PE signature 0x642e x86-64 Message-ID: <1860fc12998.bc099c58101789.7827319554389851741@zoho.com> I have tried to build a efi test file by reading: https://wiki.osdev.org/GNU-EFI but the file did not loaded... and then I saw that file show what seems an invalid file format: paul at starman:~/efitest$ file main.efi main.efi: PE Unknown PE signature 0x642e x86-64 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows where when I do: paul at starman:~/efitest$ file /media/paul/VTOYEFI/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI /media/paul/VTOYEFI/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI: PE32+ executable (EFI application) x86-64 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows (I test it by copying main.efi over BOOTX64.EFI on the Ventoy USB key). Why I don't get the same file format? I suspect this is a bug, but I am writing to ask before filing one. Also this seems to exist since 2015: " # $(OBJCOPY) -B i386 -I binary -O pei-i386 $(INSERT_NAME) $(INSERT_NAME).o # This objcopy produces .o file, for which file says: "foo.bar.o: PE Unknown PE signature 0x642e (Unknown subsystem 0x0) Intel 80386 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows" " taken from: https://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-2288915.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfredo.nodo at protonmail.com Thu Feb 2 07:16:35 2023 From: alfredo.nodo at protonmail.com (alfredo.nodo) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2023 07:16:35 +0000 Subject: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS support Message-ID: Hi,I see here that you are the maintainers of the package jami https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/jami Are you planning to port it to Ubuntu 22.04 LTS? Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 249 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dmr.mex at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 23:50:47 2023 From: dmr.mex at gmail.com (David MartinezRamirez) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 17:50:47 -0600 Subject: screenshot feature request Message-ID: Hi I would like to ask for a change in screenshot program consisting in prevent the use of mouse drag to take a region of screen and change it for two clicks at the corners of the rectangle, showing dotted lines to set the picture area. If someone could change it in the program I would thank them. Have a nice day. From vpai at akamai.com Wed Feb 1 18:48:35 2023 From: vpai at akamai.com (Vishwanath Pai) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:48:35 -0500 Subject: PAM update (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) seems broken Message-ID: <28884533-a27d-0411-2678-3780f1380756@akamai.com> Hi All, In the latest update for pam, the patch was added to "debian/patches" vs "debian/patches-applied" where all the other patches for pam reside. Was this intentional? pam (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) focal-security; urgency=medium   * SECURITY UPDATE: authentication bypass vulnerability     - debian/patches/CVE-2022-28321.patch: pam_access: handle hostnames in       access.conf     - CVE-2022-28321  -- Nishit Majithia   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:15:43 +0530 For our bionic builds it is picking up all patches from debian/patches-applied but not debian/patches. The build passes but the CVE fix is not applied. For our focal builds, it seems to only pickup debian/patches, so the CVE does get patched the rest of the patches in debian/patches-applied does not apply. We only noticed this because the build fails. On focal, dpkg-source seems to be applying the patch: $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc gpgv: Signature made Tue 24 Jan 2023 06:56:23 AM EST gpgv:                using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C gpgv:                issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.3.1 dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1.orig.tar.xz dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.debian.tar.xz dpkg-source: info: using patch list from debian/patches/series dpkg-source: info: applying CVE-2022-28321.patch But when I do "dpkg-buildpackage" it removes the CVE fix before building: $ dpkg-buildpackage                                        dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package pam dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4 dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution focal-security dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Nishit Majithia dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64  dpkg-source --before-build .  fakeroot debian/rules clean dh clean --with quilt,autoreconf    dh_quilt_unpatch Removing patch CVE-2022-28321.patch Restoring modules/pam_access/pam_access.c On bionic dpkg-source does not apply the CVE patch at all: $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc gpgv: Signature made Tue Jan 24 12:36:38 2023 UTC gpgv: using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C gpgv: issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.1.8 dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.tar.gz I am not sure how the version in the repos got built, but its possible the CVE fix did not apply. Thanks, Vishwanath From vpai at akamai.com Wed Feb 1 18:53:33 2023 From: vpai at akamai.com (Vishwanath Pai) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:53:33 -0500 Subject: PAM update (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) seems broken In-Reply-To: <28884533-a27d-0411-2678-3780f1380756@akamai.com> References: <28884533-a27d-0411-2678-3780f1380756@akamai.com> Message-ID: I think I messed up my summary a bit: On focal: dpkg-source applies the CVE fix from debian/patchs, but dpkg-buildpackage removes it before building the package. On bionic: dpkg-source does not apply the patches in debian/patch. So in both the cases it does not seem to apply the CVE fix. -Vishwanath On 2/1/2023 1:48 PM, Vishwanath Pai wrote: > Hi All, > > In the latest update for pam, the patch was added to "debian/patches" vs "debian/patches-applied" > where all the other patches for pam reside. Was this intentional? > > pam (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) focal-security; urgency=medium > >   * SECURITY UPDATE: authentication bypass vulnerability >     - debian/patches/CVE-2022-28321.patch: pam_access: handle hostnames in >       access.conf >     - CVE-2022-28321 > >  -- Nishit Majithia   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:15:43 +0530 > > For our bionic builds it is picking up all patches from debian/patches-applied but not > debian/patches. The build passes but the CVE fix is not applied. > > For our focal builds, it seems to only pickup debian/patches, so the CVE does get patched the rest > of the patches in debian/patches-applied does not apply. We only noticed this because the build > fails. > > On focal, dpkg-source seems to be applying the patch: > > $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc > gpgv: Signature made Tue 24 Jan 2023 06:56:23 AM EST > gpgv:                using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C > gpgv:                issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" > gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key > dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc > dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.3.1 > dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1.orig.tar.xz > dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.debian.tar.xz > dpkg-source: info: using patch list from debian/patches/series > dpkg-source: info: applying CVE-2022-28321.patch > > But when I do "dpkg-buildpackage" it removes the CVE fix before building: > > $ dpkg-buildpackage                                        > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package pam > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4 > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution focal-security > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Nishit Majithia > dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64 >  dpkg-source --before-build . >  fakeroot debian/rules clean > dh clean --with quilt,autoreconf >    dh_quilt_unpatch > Removing patch CVE-2022-28321.patch > Restoring modules/pam_access/pam_access.c > > On bionic dpkg-source does not apply the CVE patch at all: > > $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc > > gpgv: Signature made Tue Jan 24 12:36:38 2023 UTC > > gpgv: using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C > > gpgv: issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" > > gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key > > dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc > > dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.1.8 > > dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.tar.gz > > > I am not sure how the version in the repos got built, but its possible the CVE fix did not apply. > > Thanks, > Vishwanath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nishit.majithia at canonical.com Thu Feb 2 07:03:13 2023 From: nishit.majithia at canonical.com (Nishit Majithia) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:33:13 +0530 Subject: PAM update (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) seems broken In-Reply-To: References: <28884533-a27d-0411-2678-3780f1380756@akamai.com> Message-ID: <20230202070313.bplslvrwmdphxhoo@machine> Hi Vishwanath, Thank you for reporting the issue. The patch got applied incorrectly to debian/patches instead of debian/patches-applied dir. We will fix this issue and could track it if you can create an Launchpad bug for this here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pam/+filebug Thanks Nishit On Wed, 01. Feb 13:53, Vishwanath Pai wrote: > I think I messed up my summary a bit: > On focal: dpkg-source applies the CVE fix from debian/patchs, but dpkg-buildpackage removes > it before building the package. > > On bionic: dpkg-source does not apply the patches in debian/patch. > > So in both the cases it does not seem to apply the CVE fix. > > -Vishwanath > > On 2/1/2023 1:48 PM, Vishwanath Pai wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > In the latest update for pam, the patch was added to "debian/patches" vs "debian/patches-applied" > > where all the other patches for pam reside. Was this intentional? > > > > pam (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) focal-security; urgency=medium > > > >   * SECURITY UPDATE: authentication bypass vulnerability > >     - debian/patches/CVE-2022-28321.patch: pam_access: handle hostnames in > >       access.conf > >     - CVE-2022-28321 > > > >  -- Nishit Majithia   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:15:43 +0530 > > > > For our bionic builds it is picking up all patches from debian/patches-applied but not > > debian/patches. The build passes but the CVE fix is not applied. > > > > For our focal builds, it seems to only pickup debian/patches, so the CVE does get patched the rest > > of the patches in debian/patches-applied does not apply. We only noticed this because the build > > fails. > > > > On focal, dpkg-source seems to be applying the patch: > > > > $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc > > gpgv: Signature made Tue 24 Jan 2023 06:56:23 AM EST > > gpgv:                using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C > > gpgv:                issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" > > gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key > > dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc > > dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.3.1 > > dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1.orig.tar.xz > > dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.debian.tar.xz > > dpkg-source: info: using patch list from debian/patches/series > > dpkg-source: info: applying CVE-2022-28321.patch > > > > But when I do "dpkg-buildpackage" it removes the CVE fix before building: > > > > $ dpkg-buildpackage                                        > > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package pam > > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4 > > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution focal-security > > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Nishit Majithia > > dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64 > >  dpkg-source --before-build . > >  fakeroot debian/rules clean > > dh clean --with quilt,autoreconf > >    dh_quilt_unpatch > > Removing patch CVE-2022-28321.patch > > Restoring modules/pam_access/pam_access.c > > > > On bionic dpkg-source does not apply the CVE patch at all: > > > > $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc > > > > gpgv: Signature made Tue Jan 24 12:36:38 2023 UTC > > > > gpgv: using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C > > > > gpgv: issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" > > > > gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key > > > > dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc > > > > dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.1.8 > > > > dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.tar.gz > > > > > > I am not sure how the version in the repos got built, but its possible the CVE fix did not apply. > > > > Thanks, > > Vishwanath -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vpai at akamai.com Thu Feb 2 18:04:14 2023 From: vpai at akamai.com (Vishwanath Pai) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 13:04:14 -0500 Subject: PAM update (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) seems broken In-Reply-To: <20230202123936.her2otswvvadb52l@machine> References: <28884533-a27d-0411-2678-3780f1380756@akamai.com> <20230202070313.bplslvrwmdphxhoo@machine> <20230202123936.her2otswvvadb52l@machine> Message-ID: <8c534e99-e040-d705-a508-4c27f68afbb0@akamai.com> Hi Nishit, Thanks for the quick fix. I took a look at the new bionic and focal sources, it looks good to me. I do see that the debian/patches/series file is still present in both the sources (empty files), maybe best to remove it to avoid a similar issue in the future? Thanks, Vishwanath On 2/2/2023 7:39 AM, Nishit Majithia wrote: > Hi Vishwanath, > > We have updated the package with correct fix and uploaded > here: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security-proposed/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages?field.name_filter=pam > > It would be great if you can test this updated package and > provide the feedback > > Thanks > Nishit > > On Thu, 02. Feb 12:33, Nishit Majithia wrote: >> Hi Vishwanath, >> >> Thank you for reporting the issue. The patch got applied >> incorrectly to debian/patches instead of >> debian/patches-applied dir. We will fix this issue and could >> track it if you can create an Launchpad bug for this here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pam/+filebug >> >> Thanks >> Nishit >> >> On Wed, 01. Feb 13:53, Vishwanath Pai wrote: >>> I think I messed up my summary a bit: >>> On focal: dpkg-source applies the CVE fix from debian/patchs, but dpkg-buildpackage removes >>> it before building the package. >>> >>> On bionic: dpkg-source does not apply the patches in debian/patch. >>> >>> So in both the cases it does not seem to apply the CVE fix. >>> >>> -Vishwanath >>> >>> On 2/1/2023 1:48 PM, Vishwanath Pai wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> In the latest update for pam, the patch was added to "debian/patches" vs "debian/patches-applied" >>>> where all the other patches for pam reside. Was this intentional? >>>> >>>> pam (1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4) focal-security; urgency=medium >>>> >>>>   * SECURITY UPDATE: authentication bypass vulnerability >>>>     - debian/patches/CVE-2022-28321.patch: pam_access: handle hostnames in >>>>       access.conf >>>>     - CVE-2022-28321 >>>> >>>>  -- Nishit Majithia   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:15:43 +0530 >>>> >>>> For our bionic builds it is picking up all patches from debian/patches-applied but not >>>> debian/patches. The build passes but the CVE fix is not applied. >>>> >>>> For our focal builds, it seems to only pickup debian/patches, so the CVE does get patched the rest >>>> of the patches in debian/patches-applied does not apply. We only noticed this because the build >>>> fails. >>>> >>>> On focal, dpkg-source seems to be applying the patch: >>>> >>>> $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc >>>> gpgv: Signature made Tue 24 Jan 2023 06:56:23 AM EST >>>> gpgv:                using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C >>>> gpgv:                issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" >>>> gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key >>>> dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.dsc >>>> dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.3.1 >>>> dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1.orig.tar.xz >>>> dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4.debian.tar.xz >>>> dpkg-source: info: using patch list from debian/patches/series >>>> dpkg-source: info: applying CVE-2022-28321.patch >>>> >>>> But when I do "dpkg-buildpackage" it removes the CVE fix before building: >>>> >>>> $ dpkg-buildpackage                                        >>>> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package pam >>>> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 1.3.1-5ubuntu4.4 >>>> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution focal-security >>>> dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Nishit Majithia >>>> dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture amd64 >>>>  dpkg-source --before-build . >>>>  fakeroot debian/rules clean >>>> dh clean --with quilt,autoreconf >>>>    dh_quilt_unpatch >>>> Removing patch CVE-2022-28321.patch >>>> Restoring modules/pam_access/pam_access.c >>>> >>>> On bionic dpkg-source does not apply the CVE patch at all: >>>> >>>> $ dpkg-source -x pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc >>>> >>>> gpgv: Signature made Tue Jan 24 12:36:38 2023 UTC >>>> >>>> gpgv: using RSA key B35EBCD35C6717BC0ADEB08AEC873ACED468723C >>>> >>>> gpgv: issuer "nishit.majithia at canonical.com" >>>> >>>> gpgv: Can't check signature: No public key >>>> >>>> dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.dsc >>>> >>>> dpkg-source: info: extracting pam in pam-1.1.8 >>>> >>>> dpkg-source: info: unpacking pam_1.1.8-3.6ubuntu2.18.04.4.tar.gz >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure how the version in the repos got built, but its possible the CVE fix did not apply. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Vishwanath > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com Mon Feb 6 06:59:37 2023 From: christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com (Christian Ehrhardt) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 07:59:37 +0100 Subject: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 12:00 AM alfredo.nodo wrote: > > Hi, > I see here that you are the maintainers of the package jami https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/jami > Are you planning to port it to Ubuntu 22.04 LTS? Hi Alfredo, this binary package belongs to source ring which has many many bugs and crashes [1]. Hence it was removed from Ubuntu [2] and Debian [3] over and over again. There now is a new version [4] but it seems to break just as much. Due to that it is unlikely to make it into the next release 23.04 and even more unlikely to then be backported into 22.04. [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ring [2]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ring/+bug/1885646 [3]: https://tracker.debian.org/news/1270862/ring-removed-from-testing/ [4]: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ring/20210112.2.b757bac~ds1-2 I hope that clarifies why you miss it post focal. > Thank you > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Christian Ehrhardt Senior Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd From robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 04:40:55 2023 From: robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com (Robert Ayrapetyan) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 20:40:55 -0800 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken Message-ID: Hello, I've started to get: /usr/include/sqltypes.h:56:10: fatal error: unixodbc.h: No such file or directory 56 | #include "unixodbc.h" when building certain packages. As per list of files: https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/amd64/unixodbc-dev/filelist, unixodbc.h is not part of it, but it's part of ftp://ftp.unixodbc.org/pub/unixODBC/unixODBC-2.3.11.tar.gz. Am I missing something? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 18:13:13 2023 From: robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com (Robert Ayrapetyan) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 10:13:13 -0800 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: More details: # lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS Release: 20.04 Codename: focal # apt show unixodbc-dev Package: unixodbc-dev Version: 2.3.11 Status: install ok installed Priority: extra Section: devel Source: unixodbc Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers Original-Maintainer: Steve Langasek Installed-Size: 1,739 kB Depends: unixodbc (= 2.3.11), odbcinst1debian2 (= 2.3.11), libltdl3-dev Conflicts: libiodbc2-dev, remembrance-agent (<< 2.11-4) Homepage: http://www.unixodbc.org/ Download-Size: unknown APT-Manual-Installed: yes APT-Sources: /var/lib/dpkg/status Description: ODBC libraries for UNIX (development files) # cat /usr/include/sqltypes.h | grep unixodbc.h * In these cases, the compiler uses #defines stored in unixodbc.h to determine the #include "unixodbc.h" # find / -name 'unixodbc*' /var/lib/dpkg/info/unixodbc.list /var/lib/dpkg/info/unixodbc-dev.list /var/lib/dpkg/info/unixodbc-dev.md5sums /var/lib/dpkg/info/unixodbc.md5sums /usr/share/doc/unixodbc /usr/share/doc/unixodbc-dev /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unixodbc_conf.h On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:40 PM Robert Ayrapetyan < robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, I've started to get: > > /usr/include/sqltypes.h:56:10: fatal error: unixodbc.h: No such file or > directory > 56 | #include "unixodbc.h" > > when building certain packages. > As per list of files: > https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/amd64/unixodbc-dev/filelist, unixodbc.h > is not part of it, but it's part of > ftp://ftp.unixodbc.org/pub/unixODBC/unixODBC-2.3.11.tar.gz. > > Am I missing something? Thanks. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cjwatson at ubuntu.com Sat Feb 11 23:08:05 2023 From: cjwatson at ubuntu.com (Colin Watson) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 23:08:05 +0000 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:13:13AM -0800, Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: > # lsb_release -a > No LSB modules are available. > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description: Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS > Release: 20.04 > Codename: focal > > > # apt show unixodbc-dev > Package: unixodbc-dev > Version: 2.3.11 This is not a package that comes from Ubuntu 20.04, and in fact it doesn't appear to have come from any version of Ubuntu at all (versions of unixodbc-dev provided by Ubuntu have some kind of suffix after the upstream version number - for example, the version in Ubuntu 22.10 is 2.3.11-2). Where did you get it from? The package is clearly broken, but that isn't an Ubuntu problem - perhaps you should reinstall the working version from Ubuntu. -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwatson at ubuntu.com] From robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 23:46:37 2023 From: robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com (Robert Ayrapetyan) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 15:46:37 -0800 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You're right, it came from: https://packages.microsoft.com/ubuntu/20.04/prod focal/main amd64 unixodbc-dev amd64 2.3.11 [42.1 kB] What's the best way to install the right package (2.3.11-2) without removing MS repo? On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:09 PM Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:13:13AM -0800, Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: > > # lsb_release -a > > No LSB modules are available. > > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > > Description: Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS > > Release: 20.04 > > Codename: focal > > > > > > # apt show unixodbc-dev > > Package: unixodbc-dev > > Version: 2.3.11 > > This is not a package that comes from Ubuntu 20.04, and in fact it > doesn't appear to have come from any version of Ubuntu at all (versions > of unixodbc-dev provided by Ubuntu have some kind of suffix after the > upstream version number - for example, the version in Ubuntu 22.10 is > 2.3.11-2). Where did you get it from? The package is clearly broken, > but that isn't an Ubuntu problem - perhaps you should reinstall the > working version from Ubuntu. > > -- > Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwatson at ubuntu.com] > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 23:55:59 2023 From: robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com (Robert Ayrapetyan) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 15:55:59 -0800 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seems it comes as part of msodbcsql18 from official MS repository... On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:46 PM Robert Ayrapetyan < robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com> wrote: > You're right, it came from: > > https://packages.microsoft.com/ubuntu/20.04/prod focal/main amd64 > unixodbc-dev amd64 2.3.11 [42.1 kB] > > What's the best way to install the right package (2.3.11-2) without > removing MS repo? > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:09 PM Colin Watson wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:13:13AM -0800, Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: >> > # lsb_release -a >> > No LSB modules are available. >> > Distributor ID: Ubuntu >> > Description: Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS >> > Release: 20.04 >> > Codename: focal >> > >> > >> > # apt show unixodbc-dev >> > Package: unixodbc-dev >> > Version: 2.3.11 >> >> This is not a package that comes from Ubuntu 20.04, and in fact it >> doesn't appear to have come from any version of Ubuntu at all (versions >> of unixodbc-dev provided by Ubuntu have some kind of suffix after the >> upstream version number - for example, the version in Ubuntu 22.10 is >> 2.3.11-2). Where did you get it from? The package is clearly broken, >> but that isn't an Ubuntu problem - perhaps you should reinstall the >> working version from Ubuntu. >> >> -- >> Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwatson at ubuntu.com] >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From teward at thomas-ward.net Sun Feb 12 00:41:38 2023 From: teward at thomas-ward.net (Thomas Ward) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:41:38 +0000 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unfortunately here your choices are limited. The ODBC from Microsoft is different than the one in the repos and the two packages conflict. >From my experience you will have to pick one or the other - use Microsoft's packaged ODBC and no headers, or use the one in the repos with the headers and not use Microsoft. Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message -------- From: Robert Ayrapetyan Date: 2/11/23 18:56 (GMT-05:00) To: ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken Seems it comes as part of msodbcsql18 from official MS repository... On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:46 PM Robert Ayrapetyan > wrote: You're right, it came from: https://packages.microsoft.com/ubuntu/20.04/prod focal/main amd64 unixodbc-dev amd64 2.3.11 [42.1 kB] What's the best way to install the right package (2.3.11-2) without removing MS repo? On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:09 PM Colin Watson > wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:13:13AM -0800, Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: > # lsb_release -a > No LSB modules are available. > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description: Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS > Release: 20.04 > Codename: focal > > > # apt show unixodbc-dev > Package: unixodbc-dev > Version: 2.3.11 This is not a package that comes from Ubuntu 20.04, and in fact it doesn't appear to have come from any version of Ubuntu at all (versions of unixodbc-dev provided by Ubuntu have some kind of suffix after the upstream version number - for example, the version in Ubuntu 22.10 is 2.3.11-2). Where did you get it from? The package is clearly broken, but that isn't an Ubuntu problem - perhaps you should reinstall the working version from Ubuntu. -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwatson at ubuntu.com] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 17:51:59 2023 From: robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com (Robert Ayrapetyan) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:51:59 -0800 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Do you know what's the best way to report this issue to the maintainers of MS repo? On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 4:41 PM Thomas Ward wrote: > Unfortunately here your choices are limited. The ODBC from Microsoft is > different than the one in the repos and the two packages conflict. > > From my experience you will have to pick one or the other - use > Microsoft's packaged ODBC and no headers, or use the one in the repos with > the headers and not use Microsoft. > > > > Sent from my Galaxy > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Robert Ayrapetyan > Date: 2/11/23 18:56 (GMT-05:00) > To: ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Subject: Re: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken > > Seems it comes as part of msodbcsql18 from official MS repository... > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:46 PM Robert Ayrapetyan < > robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com> wrote: > >> You're right, it came from: >> >> https://packages.microsoft.com/ubuntu/20.04/prod focal/main amd64 >> unixodbc-dev amd64 2.3.11 [42.1 kB] >> >> What's the best way to install the right package (2.3.11-2) without >> removing MS repo? >> >> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 3:09 PM Colin Watson wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:13:13AM -0800, Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: >>> > # lsb_release -a >>> > No LSB modules are available. >>> > Distributor ID: Ubuntu >>> > Description: Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS >>> > Release: 20.04 >>> > Codename: focal >>> > >>> > >>> > # apt show unixodbc-dev >>> > Package: unixodbc-dev >>> > Version: 2.3.11 >>> >>> This is not a package that comes from Ubuntu 20.04, and in fact it >>> doesn't appear to have come from any version of Ubuntu at all (versions >>> of unixodbc-dev provided by Ubuntu have some kind of suffix after the >>> upstream version number - for example, the version in Ubuntu 22.10 is >>> 2.3.11-2). Where did you get it from? The package is clearly broken, >>> but that isn't an Ubuntu problem - perhaps you should reinstall the >>> working version from Ubuntu. >>> >>> -- >>> Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwatson at ubuntu.com] >>> >>> -- >>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicholas at guriev.su Sun Feb 12 06:23:42 2023 From: nicholas at guriev.su (Nicholas Guriev) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 09:23:42 +0300 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3852862.asFRNr2ZIV@barberry> On 12.02.2023 02:46:37 MSK Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: > You're right, it came from: > > https://packages.microsoft.com/ubuntu/20.04/prod focal/main amd64 > unixodbc-dev amd64 2.3.11 [42.1 kB] > > What's the best way to install the right package (2.3.11-2) without > removing MS repo? You can lower priority of Microsoft's repository putting the following in the /etc/apt/preferences file. Package: * Pin: origin "packages.microsoft.com" Pin-Priority: 100 See apt_preferences(5) for details. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 16:47:51 2023 From: robert.ayrapetyan at gmail.com (Robert Ayrapetyan) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:47:51 -0800 Subject: unixodbc-dev 2.3.11 seems broken In-Reply-To: <3852862.asFRNr2ZIV@barberry> References: <3852862.asFRNr2ZIV@barberry> Message-ID: Now I'm not sure unixodbc-dev from Ubuntu is compatible with msodbc17/18 drivers. Anyway, here is the link of the opened issue on the github: https://github.com/microsoft/linux-package-repositories/issues/36 On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:45 AM Nicholas Guriev wrote: > On 12.02.2023 02:46:37 MSK Robert Ayrapetyan wrote: > > You're right, it came from: > > > > https://packages.microsoft.com/ubuntu/20.04/prod focal/main amd64 > > unixodbc-dev amd64 2.3.11 [42.1 kB] > > > > What's the best way to install the right package (2.3.11-2) without > > removing MS repo? > > You can lower priority of Microsoft's repository putting the following in > the > /etc/apt/preferences file. > > Package: * > Pin: origin "packages.microsoft.com" > Pin-Priority: 100 > > See apt_preferences(5) for details. > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hendrik.zumfeld at outlook.de Thu Feb 16 11:07:46 2023 From: hendrik.zumfeld at outlook.de (Hendrik Zumfeld) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:07:46 +0000 Subject: Ubuntu 22.04 Dist-Upgrade destroyed my laptop Message-ID: Hey there, today i have updated my T560 laptop to Ubuntu 22.04. After that it was completely broken. When starting only a white screen appears with hieroglyphs. When calling the grub loader i was able to select the kernel and i figured out that with my Ubuntu 22.04.1 upgrade, the command "do-release-upgrade" have installed the kernel 5.19 instead of 5.15 (or both). However: When starting the laptop with 5.15 everything works fine, with 5.19 everything was broken. Wlan has not worked, booting has not worked, nearly nothing has worked. I was about to reinstall everything. I googled and i found the information that 5.19 should be installed with 22.04.2 and not with 22.04.1. So i guess something went wrong on your site. I hope my report can help you. Many greetings Hendrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arraybolt3 at ubuntu.com Thu Feb 16 20:52:47 2023 From: arraybolt3 at ubuntu.com (Aaron Rainbolt) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:52:47 -0600 Subject: Ubuntu 22.04 Dist-Upgrade destroyed my laptop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b903f3f-3c5e-9c42-3bc8-d73ea21038be@ubuntu.com> On 2/16/23 05:07, Hendrik Zumfeld wrote: > Hey there, > > today i have updated my T560 laptop to Ubuntu 22.04. After that it was > completely broken. When starting only a white screen appears > with hieroglyphs. > When calling the grub loader i was able to select the kernel and i > figured out that with my Ubuntu 22.04.1 upgrade, the command > "do-release-upgrade" have installed the kernel 5.19 instead of 5.15 > (or both). > However: > > When starting the laptop with 5.15 everything works fine, with 5.19 > everything was broken. Wlan has not worked, booting has not worked, > nearly nothing has worked. I was about to reinstall everything. > > I googled and i found the information that 5.19 should be installed > with 22.04.2 and not with 22.04.1. So i guess something went wrong on > your site. LTS releases of Ubuntu automatically "upgrade" from point release to point release without needing a do-release-upgrade, so 22.04 goes to 22.04.1 to 22.04.2 without an upgrade - this is because each point release is really just a convenience to make future installs have more updates pre-installed. (And helps with bug fixes.) Kernel 5.19 has rolled out to the 22.04 release, so it's expected that it will be installed if you upgrade to 22.04. If you install 22.04.1, and then upgrade, you will likely end up with kernel 5.19. And you'll end up with kernel 5.19 if you install 22.04.2 once it is released. But it shouldn't break your system, that seems bad. A white screen with hieroglyphs almost sounds like maybe your initramfs files didn't generate right somehow? To begin with, I'd highly recommend making backups of your data before proceeding with any fix attempts, so that if anything goes awry you can recover. Once you have backups, can you run the following commands while booted into kernel 5.15: dpkg-query -s linux-image-5.19.0-32-generic dpkg-query -s linux-headers-5.19.0-32-generic dpkg-query -s linux-modules-5.19.0-32-generic dpkg-query -s linux-modules-extra-5.19.0-32-generic If any of those packages show as "not installed", run "sudo apt install linux-image-generic-hwe-22.04" and that should install the kernel fully. Also run "sudo apt install linux-generic" to make good and sure that a 5.15 kernel sticks around on your system for recovery purposes. Finally, also run "sudo update-initramfs -c -k all" to make sure the initramfs files are properly generated for all installed kernels. Once that's done, try booting into 5.19 again and see if you still get the same results. If so, your hardware might be incompatible with kernel 5.19, or perhaps there's a different problem on your machine. Sorry to hear that an upgrade went south on you - hopefully we can debug it and get your system back up-and-running normally. Also, if you can reply to the ubuntu-users list only since this is for support currently, that would be ideal. (You posted to the right list for reporting a problem, I'm just asking for us to move to the other one for now since this looks like it may not be a problem with Ubuntu itself, but rather with your system.) > > I hope my report can help you. > > Many greetings > Hendrik > -- Aaron Rainbolt Lubuntu Developer https://github.com/ArrayBolt3 https://launchpad.net/~arraybolt3 @arraybolt3:lubuntu.me on Matrix, arraybolt3 on irc.libera.chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_0x6169B9B4248C0464.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 4853 bytes Desc: OpenPGP public key URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 840 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From R45XvezA at protonmail.ch Fri Feb 17 09:21:20 2023 From: R45XvezA at protonmail.ch (R45XvezA) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:21:20 +0000 Subject: [si] Modify pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language Message-ID: Hi developers and other parties, See the screenshot: https://i.ibb.co/g6023z1/new-installer.png https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-desktop-installer (new installer) (pre-installed keyboard layouts list that comes with ubuntu iso) But we have a government approved and standard non-phonetic keyboard layout called "wijesekara" for sinhala language. It only appear to use after the installation is completed and updated the system. See the screenshot: https://i.ibb.co/DkTrPqt/settings-layouts-list.png So we want to modify the pre-installed keyboard list and add the wijesekara layout to come with cd image and move unnecessary phonetic layouts for optional use (means, to receive via system updates or remove unnecessary phonetic layouts permanently and keep a one from them). Where should i file a issue? it seems, i have to open in multiple repositories Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net Fri Feb 17 10:12:50 2023 From: ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net (Ralf Mardorf) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:12:50 +0100 Subject: [si] Modify pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019e80362760493427ca02bf5b118261b5ef4c41.camel@alice-dsl.net> off topic Unfortunately, very aesthetic native lettering invite problems in the context of modern technology. Reminds me of the Turkish alphabet revolution anticipating future benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Turkish_alphabet. IMOH aesthetic native scripts or phonetic mixed forms of native scripts is suitable for art, not for modern technology and international networking, regardless of a rating, i.e. whether the decisions were right or wrong, they were made long ago. In my opinion, it makes more sense to introduce and get used to a Latin alphabet with additional characters than to stick with fonts based on old handwriting. From gunnarhj at ubuntu.com Fri Feb 17 11:32:13 2023 From: gunnarhj at ubuntu.com (Gunnar Hjalmarsson) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 12:32:13 +0100 Subject: [si] Modify pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2023-02-17 10:21, R45XvezA wrote: > But we have a government approved and standard non-phonetic keyboard > layout called "wijesekara" for sinhala language. It only appear to > use after the installation is completed and updated the system. The window for selecting keyboard layout is only for XKB layouts. wijesekara is an input method provided by the ibus-m17n package. It's already set up so wijesekara is added to the list of input sources for users who select Sinhala as the language in the installer. That way they can use wijesekara already in live sessions ("Try Ubuntu"), and wijesekara also — as you mentioned — stays as an input source option at first login after a complete installation. > So we want to modify the pre-installed keyboard list and add the > wijesekara layout to come with cd image Adding IBus input methods to that list would be a non-trivial change, and not so important IMO in the light of what I just pointed out. > and move unnecessary phonetic layouts for optional use (means, to > receive via system updates or remove unnecessary phonetic layouts > permanently and keep a one from them). The window simply shows keyboard layouts provided by the xkb-data package. If you actually want to drop some layouts, you'd better file an upstream issue: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xkeyboard-config/xkeyboard-config/-/issues But please note that other Sinhala speaking users may have preferences which differ from yours. -- Rgds, Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj From thrusce at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 16:43:32 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 08:43:32 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language Message-ID: I have noticed over the past year or so that some of the options for the Hebrew keyboard layout are no longer available in the base release. I am referring specifically to the Tiro (Biblical) Hebrew keyboard, which allows one to type accents and vowel points. The only keyboard now installed by default seems to be the standard Israeli keyboard, which appears to be consonants-only. That is fine for native speakers, but is not sufficient for pedagogic or scholarly writing. Ironically, today's synagogue reading contains the first mention of Moses writing the Torah. Please make sure the previous default symbol file for the Hebrew keyboard continues to be the default. Thanks, Coby Ingram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: il Type: application/octet-stream Size: 16256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gunnarhj at ubuntu.com Fri Feb 17 18:45:26 2023 From: gunnarhj at ubuntu.com (Gunnar Hjalmarsson) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:45:26 +0100 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> On 2023-02-17 17:43, Coburn Ingram wrote: > I have noticed over the past year or so that some of the options for > the Hebrew keyboard layout are no longer available in the base > release. I am referring specifically to the Tiro (Biblical) Hebrew > keyboard, which allows one to type accents and vowel points. The only > keyboard now installed by default seems to be the standard Israeli > keyboard, which appears to be consonants-only. I don't understand what you mean. I see Tiro and a few other Hebrew layouts in both jammy and lunar. Please add some details so we can sort it. (One question would be if you talk about the installer or Settings -> Keyboard.) -- Rgds, Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj From thrusce at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 18:51:12 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:51:12 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: Thank you. If you are seeing multiple keyboards after an install, it is probably just a glitch. My experience has been that I regularly install and test each new release on a live USB, using mkusb. When I go into Settings to configure the keyboard, it has been giving me only one option for Hebrew. Thanks for checking this concern so thoroughly. Coby On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:46 AM Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > On 2023-02-17 17:43, Coburn Ingram wrote: > > I have noticed over the past year or so that some of the options for > > the Hebrew keyboard layout are no longer available in the base > > release. I am referring specifically to the Tiro (Biblical) Hebrew > > keyboard, which allows one to type accents and vowel points. The only > > keyboard now installed by default seems to be the standard Israeli > > keyboard, which appears to be consonants-only. > > I don't understand what you mean. I see Tiro and a few other Hebrew > layouts in both jammy and lunar. > > Please add some details so we can sort it. (One question would be if you > talk about the installer or Settings -> Keyboard.) > > -- > Rgds, > > Gunnar Hjalmarsson > https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gunnarhj at ubuntu.com Fri Feb 17 19:03:36 2023 From: gunnarhj at ubuntu.com (Gunnar Hjalmarsson) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 20:03:36 +0100 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> On 2023-02-17 19:51, Coburn Ingram wrote: > Thank you. > > If you are seeing multiple keyboards after an install, it is > probably just a glitch. Maybe. > My experience has been that I regularly install and test each new > release on a live USB, using mkusb. When I go into Settings to > configure the keyboard, it has been giving me only one option for > Hebrew. Your experience might be a result of the overcomplicated UI in Settings for adding a new input source. But it's hard to tell without a screenshot or something. > Thanks for checking this concern so thoroughly. Not thoroughly at all, really. ;) I haven't checked it in a live session, for instance. -- Cheers, Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj From thrusce at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 22:17:03 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:17:03 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: I will keep an eye on this and see if there is anything to report. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:04 AM Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > On 2023-02-17 19:51, Coburn Ingram wrote: > > Thank you. > > > > If you are seeing multiple keyboards after an install, it is > > probably just a glitch. > > Maybe. > > > My experience has been that I regularly install and test each new > > release on a live USB, using mkusb. When I go into Settings to > > configure the keyboard, it has been giving me only one option for > > Hebrew. > > Your experience might be a result of the overcomplicated UI in Settings > for adding a new input source. But it's hard to tell without a > screenshot or something. > > > Thanks for checking this concern so thoroughly. > > Not thoroughly at all, really. ;) I haven't checked it in a live > session, for instance. > > -- > Cheers, > > Gunnar Hjalmarsson > https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From EdAshford at nili.ca Fri Feb 24 23:29:42 2023 From: EdAshford at nili.ca (Ed Ashford) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:29:42 -0700 Subject: HalcyonGrid on Ubuntu Server Message-ID: <8bb40447-bc46-51a9-2e44-8bc83e6a6e88@nili.ca> Greetings, I'm wondering if there's any Ubuntu Developer(s) who might be willing to either help me setup HalcyonGrid in a VM of Ubuntu Server in VMware Workstation and/or try it themselve(s) in an Ubuntu Server VM. https://github.com/HalcyonGrid A friend of mine who installs the Halcyon Worlds on Windows Servers had provided for me a download of everything that's needed for a single region, though he meant that it would need to be connected to a Windows installation of Halcyon for running on Ubuntu. I had set the paths in the `Halycon.ini` to the IP of my VPS that is running a Windows installation of Halcyon, though it didn't work for some reason. And I had tried to setup a MySQL database for it, but there was some kind of SSL error on that. Also the new releases of Halcyon are no longer pre-compiled unfortunately. "You will have to put in MySQL server on the Ubuntu VM and install Whip (Linux compile), Anaximander II (Linux compile) and figure out how to make a website for it since the MyWorld website will not run in Ubuntu yet. (I cannot get it to run in Mono or set up Mono to run a website with Apache.)" "At this point, attempting to run Halcyon in Ubuntu simply is out of reach. Only "kf6kjg" has been able to do it so far and only by linking it to my existing world online from a home installation. Its quite complex on how to do it, and I don't know all of its requirements. "kf6kjg" is not going to take the time to try to explain it either, as it has no gain to be accomplished by it for you or anyone else at this time. It just does not work out well with no Physics operational." Also I'm wondering if any Ubuntu Developer(s) would be able to try to make running Halcyon in Ubuntu within reach (by contributing to the HalcyonGrid Project). Thank you, Shalom. -- Have questions about Life, the Universe and Everything? Visit BibleUniversity.com to finally find the real answers! "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14 https://StudytheCalendar.com Have your neighbors seen this website yet? Gospel Learning Center Bible School Secure your email with GnuPG/PGP/OpenPGP https://OpenPGP.org https://PWSafe.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_0x526CFAC73C1CF980.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 3086 bytes Desc: OpenPGP public key URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 840 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From getit4free at gmx.net Fri Feb 24 12:08:06 2023 From: getit4free at gmx.net (getit4free at gmx.net) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 13:08:06 +0100 Subject: Update for openssl? (CVE-2023-0286) Message-ID: This is my first time writing here. Please let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this question: When can we expect an update for the Focal (Ubuntu 20) openssl package to version 1.1.1t? The Security Advisory to CVE-2023-0286 had a high severity level, so I'm a bit nervous, and I don't know much about compiling myself. Philipp From frank.heimes at canonical.com Sun Feb 26 17:35:15 2023 From: frank.heimes at canonical.com (Frank Heimes) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:35:15 +0100 Subject: Update for openssl? (CVE-2023-0286) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Philipp, I recommend having a look at the Ubuntu CVE Tracker, which shows status and details about CVE-2023-0286 https://ubuntu.com/security/cves?q=2023-0286 https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2023-0286 Bye, Frank On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:29 PM wrote: > This is my first time writing here. Please let me know if this is the > wrong place to ask this question: When can we expect an update for the > Focal (Ubuntu 20) openssl package to version 1.1.1t? The Security > Advisory to CVE-2023-0286 had a high severity level, so I'm a bit > nervous, and I don't know much about compiling myself. > > Philipp > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robie.basak at ubuntu.com Sun Feb 26 18:32:57 2023 From: robie.basak at ubuntu.com (Robie Basak) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:32:57 +0000 Subject: Update for openssl? (CVE-2023-0286) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20230226183257.GF29993@mal.justgohome.co.uk> That page shows that the package has already been updated. Not to 1.1.1t though. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Versions for the reason. On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 06:35:15PM +0100, Frank Heimes wrote: > Hi Philipp, > I recommend having a look at the Ubuntu CVE Tracker, which shows status and > details about CVE-2023-0286 > https://ubuntu.com/security/cves?q=2023-0286 > https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2023-0286 > > Bye, Frank > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:29 PM wrote: > > > This is my first time writing here. Please let me know if this is the > > wrong place to ask this question: When can we expect an update for the > > Focal (Ubuntu 20) openssl package to version 1.1.1t? The Security > > Advisory to CVE-2023-0286 had a high severity level, so I'm a bit > > nervous, and I don't know much about compiling myself. > > > > Philipp > > > > > > -- > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss From thrusce at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 23:17:14 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 15:17:14 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: I did verify this problem. With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04, using *mkusb, *i.e. a persistent live ISO, the only Hebrew keyboard available was the primitive consonants-only keyboard. Sorry, I forget the name. I'm not on that install any more, and I believe it is not one of the options in the definitions file. The *il* definitions file with all the other options was still present in */usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols*. With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04 using a standard install, i.e. hardware-agnostic normal install, there were *no* Hebrew keyboards available, even when I ran *gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.input-sources show-all-sources true*. The *il* definitions file is still present and complete. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 2:17 PM Coburn Ingram wrote: > I will keep an eye on this and see if there is anything to report. > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:04 AM Gunnar Hjalmarsson > wrote: > >> On 2023-02-17 19:51, Coburn Ingram wrote: >> > Thank you. >> > >> > If you are seeing multiple keyboards after an install, it is >> > probably just a glitch. >> >> Maybe. >> >> > My experience has been that I regularly install and test each new >> > release on a live USB, using mkusb. When I go into Settings to >> > configure the keyboard, it has been giving me only one option for >> > Hebrew. >> >> Your experience might be a result of the overcomplicated UI in Settings >> for adding a new input source. But it's hard to tell without a >> screenshot or something. >> >> > Thanks for checking this concern so thoroughly. >> >> Not thoroughly at all, really. ;) I haven't checked it in a live >> session, for instance. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson >> https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gunnarhj at ubuntu.com Mon Feb 27 02:01:22 2023 From: gunnarhj at ubuntu.com (Gunnar Hjalmarsson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:01:22 +0100 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> On 2023-02-27 00:17, Coburn Ingram wrote: > I did verify this problem. > > With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04, using *mkusb, > *i.e. a persistent live ISO, the only Hebrew keyboard available was > the primitive consonants-only keyboard. Sorry, I forget the name. I'm > not on that install any more, and I believe it is not one of the > options in the definitions file. The *il* definitions file with all > the other options was still present in */usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols*. > > With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04 using a > standard install, i.e. hardware-agnostic normal install, there were > *no* Hebrew keyboards available, even when I ran *gsettings set > org.gnome.desktop.input-sources show-all-sources true*. The *il* > definitions file is still present and complete. Ok.. I just made an install of 23.04 in VirtualBox, chose the basic Hebrew layout in the installer, and it resulted in: $ gsettings get org.gnome.desktop.input-sources sources [('xkb', 'us'), ('xkb', 'il')] available at first login. (I used the "legacy" ISO.) -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj From thrusce at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 16:45:13 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:45:13 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: I didn't try the legacy ISO, but I was able to get the Hebrew keyboard working by enabling a Hebrew locale. I shouldn't have to do that, but at least there is a workaround. Ironically, my English locale enables all kinds of Indian fonts, which tend to clutter up my LibreOffice font menu, and which I will never be smart enough to use. But the one keyboard I want to use... On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:02 PM Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > On 2023-02-27 00:17, Coburn Ingram wrote: > > I did verify this problem. > > > > With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04, using *mkusb, > > *i.e. a persistent live ISO, the only Hebrew keyboard available was > > the primitive consonants-only keyboard. Sorry, I forget the name. I'm > > not on that install any more, and I believe it is not one of the > > options in the definitions file. The *il* definitions file with all > > the other options was still present in */usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols*. > > > > With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04 using a > > standard install, i.e. hardware-agnostic normal install, there were > > *no* Hebrew keyboards available, even when I ran *gsettings set > > org.gnome.desktop.input-sources show-all-sources true*. The *il* > > definitions file is still present and complete. > > Ok.. > > I just made an install of 23.04 in VirtualBox, chose the basic Hebrew > layout in the installer, and it resulted in: > > $ gsettings get org.gnome.desktop.input-sources sources > [('xkb', 'us'), ('xkb', 'il')] > > available at first login. > > (I used the "legacy" ISO.) > > -- > Gunnar Hjalmarsson > https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.g.almond at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 17:15:33 2023 From: russell.g.almond at gmail.com (Russell Almond) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:15:33 -0500 Subject: Version Errors in Emacs packages Message-ID: <0b3f8490-24d9-4130-fc45-53ff24a4e458@gmail.com> I'm getting a number of errors when installing emacs packages from the melpa/elpa library. The elpa library is serving packages that are related to version 28.x of Emacs, but the Ubuntu 22.04 and 22.10 packages are still at 27.1. This is causing issues which is forcing me to recompile all of the emacs packages I download. The simplest solution from my perspective would be to bump the Ubuntu emacs package to use version 28 (or add an optional version 28 package). As version 28 has been around for a year now, it should be stable. [Flatpack and snap are not options. The sandboxing causes emacs to behave strangely under flatpak; haven't tried snap.] Thanks, --Russell Almond From charmitro at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 17:20:44 2023 From: charmitro at gmail.com (Charalampos Mitrodimas) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 19:20:44 +0200 Subject: Version Errors in Emacs packages In-Reply-To: <0b3f8490-24d9-4130-fc45-53ff24a4e458@gmail.com> References: <0b3f8490-24d9-4130-fc45-53ff24a4e458@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Russell, Since I encountered the same issue with you a couple of months before, I think it might help you looking at https://launchpad.net/~kelleyk/+archive/ubuntu/emacs. Best regards, Charalampos On 27/2/23 7:15 PM, Russell Almond wrote: > I'm getting a number of errors when installing emacs packages from the > melpa/elpa library.  The elpa library is serving packages that are > related to version 28.x of Emacs, but the Ubuntu 22.04 and 22.10 > packages are still at 27.1. > > This is causing issues which is forcing me to recompile all of the > emacs packages I download. > > The simplest solution from my perspective would be to bump the Ubuntu > emacs package to use version 28 (or add an optional version 28 > package).  As version 28 has been around for a year now, it should be > stable. > > [Flatpack and snap are not options.  The sandboxing causes emacs to > behave strangely under flatpak; haven't tried snap.] > > Thanks, >   --Russell Almond > > From gunnarhj at ubuntu.com Mon Feb 27 17:32:05 2023 From: gunnarhj at ubuntu.com (Gunnar Hjalmarsson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:32:05 +0100 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <2e9dfa53-8a06-a3db-1b3b-a623cb6895fb@ubuntu.com> Well, Coburn, first I suspected that it was the UI for adding keyboard layouts which was the problem. Then you made me believe that the issue you are experiencing is somehow related to the installer. And now I think — again — that it's the Settings -> Keyboard UI. Please note: Keyboard layouts are *working* irrespective of which locale is enabled. But indeed, the behavior of the overcomplicated UI for adding layouts is affected by the selected locale. You really need to be more specific if you seek others' attention to a problem you are having. I have stopped guessing. / Gunnar On 2023-02-27 17:45, Coburn Ingram wrote: > I didn't try the legacy ISO, but I was able to get the Hebrew keyboard > working by enabling a Hebrew locale. I shouldn't have to do that, but at > least there is a workaround. > > Ironically, my English locale enables all kinds of Indian fonts, which tend > to clutter up my LibreOffice font menu, and which I will never be smart > enough to use. But the one keyboard I want to use... > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:02 PM Gunnar Hjalmarsson > wrote: > >> On 2023-02-27 00:17, Coburn Ingram wrote: >>> I did verify this problem. >>> >>> With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04, using *mkusb, >>> *i.e. a persistent live ISO, the only Hebrew keyboard available was >>> the primitive consonants-only keyboard. Sorry, I forget the name. I'm >>> not on that install any more, and I believe it is not one of the >>> options in the definitions file. The *il* definitions file with all >>> the other options was still present in */usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols*. >>> >>> With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04 using a >>> standard install, i.e. hardware-agnostic normal install, there were >>> *no* Hebrew keyboards available, even when I ran *gsettings set >>> org.gnome.desktop.input-sources show-all-sources true*. The *il* >>> definitions file is still present and complete. >> >> Ok.. >> >> I just made an install of 23.04 in VirtualBox, chose the basic Hebrew >> layout in the installer, and it resulted in: >> >> $ gsettings get org.gnome.desktop.input-sources sources >> [('xkb', 'us'), ('xkb', 'il')] >> >> available at first login. >> >> (I used the "legacy" ISO.) >> >> -- >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson >> https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss >> > From ogra at ubuntu.com Mon Feb 27 17:33:52 2023 From: ogra at ubuntu.com (Oliver Grawert) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:33:52 +0100 Subject: Version Errors in Emacs packages In-Reply-To: <0b3f8490-24d9-4130-fc45-53ff24a4e458@gmail.com> References: <0b3f8490-24d9-4130-fc45-53ff24a4e458@gmail.com> Message-ID: hi, Am Montag, dem 27.02.2023 um 12:15 -0500 schrieb Russell Almond: > > [Flatpack and snap are not options.  The sandboxing causes emacs to > behave strangely under flatpak; haven't tried snap.] > the snap is completely unconfined/un-sandboxed (pretty much the equivalent of an upstream binary tarball that installs into /opt, just with the snap packaging advantages (rollback, snapshots, delta upgrades, etc)) ogra at acheron:~$ snap info --verbose emacs | grep confinement confinement: classic ogra at acheron:~$ ciao oli -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From thrusce at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 19:23:13 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:23:13 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: <2e9dfa53-8a06-a3db-1b3b-a623cb6895fb@ubuntu.com> References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> <2e9dfa53-8a06-a3db-1b3b-a623cb6895fb@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I can't be more specific. You are right that it is the UI that is the problem, but I thought that was obvious. Do you have a recommendation as to who I should contact? On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:32 AM Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > Well, Coburn, first I suspected that it was the UI for adding keyboard > layouts which was the problem. Then you made me believe that the issue > you are experiencing is somehow related to the installer. And now I > think — again — that it's the Settings -> Keyboard UI. > > Please note: Keyboard layouts are *working* irrespective of which locale > is enabled. But indeed, the behavior of the overcomplicated UI for > adding layouts is affected by the selected locale. > > You really need to be more specific if you seek others' attention to a > problem you are having. I have stopped guessing. > > / Gunnar > > > On 2023-02-27 17:45, Coburn Ingram wrote: > > I didn't try the legacy ISO, but I was able to get the Hebrew keyboard > > working by enabling a Hebrew locale. I shouldn't have to do that, but at > > least there is a workaround. > > > > Ironically, my English locale enables all kinds of Indian fonts, which > tend > > to clutter up my LibreOffice font menu, and which I will never be smart > > enough to use. But the one keyboard I want to use... > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:02 PM Gunnar Hjalmarsson > > wrote: > > > >> On 2023-02-27 00:17, Coburn Ingram wrote: > >>> I did verify this problem. > >>> > >>> With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04, using *mkusb, > >>> *i.e. a persistent live ISO, the only Hebrew keyboard available was > >>> the primitive consonants-only keyboard. Sorry, I forget the name. I'm > >>> not on that install any more, and I believe it is not one of the > >>> options in the definitions file. The *il* definitions file with all > >>> the other options was still present in */usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols*. > >>> > >>> With a fresh install to a thumbdrive of Ubuntu 23.04 using a > >>> standard install, i.e. hardware-agnostic normal install, there were > >>> *no* Hebrew keyboards available, even when I ran *gsettings set > >>> org.gnome.desktop.input-sources show-all-sources true*. The *il* > >>> definitions file is still present and complete. > >> > >> Ok.. > >> > >> I just made an install of 23.04 in VirtualBox, chose the basic Hebrew > >> layout in the installer, and it resulted in: > >> > >> $ gsettings get org.gnome.desktop.input-sources sources > >> [('xkb', 'us'), ('xkb', 'il')] > >> > >> available at first login. > >> > >> (I used the "legacy" ISO.) > >> > >> -- > >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson > >> https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj > >> > >> -- > >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > >> > > > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gunnarhj at ubuntu.com Mon Feb 27 19:52:08 2023 From: gunnarhj at ubuntu.com (Gunnar Hjalmarsson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:52:08 +0100 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> <2e9dfa53-8a06-a3db-1b3b-a623cb6895fb@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <22020378-08a4-81ca-75cb-c9c301179a1f@ubuntu.com> Hi again, Coburn! Finally I realized what the nature of your issue is. It's an old GNOME issue — almost 5 years old... On 2023-02-27 20:23, Coburn Ingram wrote: > Do you have a recommendation as to who I should contact? Yes. I suggest that you make some noise at this issue: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-control-center/-/issues/82 I already added your case in the description of that issue. -- Cheers, Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj From thrusce at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 21:11:05 2023 From: thrusce at gmail.com (Coburn Ingram) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:11:05 -0800 Subject: [il] Re: pre-installed keyboard layouts for specific language In-Reply-To: <22020378-08a4-81ca-75cb-c9c301179a1f@ubuntu.com> References: <4731c601-ae4d-a580-ac93-80cc33b85b38@ubuntu.com> <60bbc137-8616-7211-2f4f-31780f7812f4@ubuntu.com> <5b7e9308-38d8-ce42-28e1-c8b4f6667d6a@ubuntu.com> <2e9dfa53-8a06-a3db-1b3b-a623cb6895fb@ubuntu.com> <22020378-08a4-81ca-75cb-c9c301179a1f@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: Mucho thanks. I didn't expect that this list would be able to solve my problem, but I hoped somebody would point me to the answer, and you have. Thanks. On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:53 AM Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > Hi again, Coburn! > > Finally I realized what the nature of your issue is. It's an old GNOME > issue — almost 5 years old... > > On 2023-02-27 20:23, Coburn Ingram wrote: > > Do you have a recommendation as to who I should contact? > > Yes. I suggest that you make some noise at this issue: > > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-control-center/-/issues/82 > > I already added your case in the description of that issue. > > -- > Cheers, > > Gunnar Hjalmarsson > https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: