sts-sponsors team mailing list archive

1. sts-sponsors team
2. Mailing list archive
3. Messages by thread

Messages by thread

Messages sent to the sts-sponsors mailing list, ordered by thread from the newest to oldest.

• [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic), (continued)
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-11-03
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Alkis Georgopoulos, 2020-11-04
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Alkis Georgopoulos, 2020-11-04
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-11-04
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Alkis Georgopoulos, 2020-11-04
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Sebastien Bacher, 2020-11-05
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Andy Whitcroft, 2020-11-05
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-11-09
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Dan Streetman, 2020-11-09
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-11-16
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Dan Streetman, 2021-01-15
  • [Bug 1830746] Re: memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
    From: Dan Streetman, 2021-01-15
• [Bug 1830746] [NEW] memlock setting in systemd (pid 1) too low for containers (bionic)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-16
• [Bug 1886300] Update Released
  From: Brian Murray, 2020-09-15
• [Bug 1879980] Update Released
  From: Brian Murray, 2020-09-15
• [Bug 1879987] Update Released
  From: Brian Murray, 2020-09-15
• [Bug 1876600] Autopkgtest regression report (systemd/229-4ubuntu21.29)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-09-04
• [Bug 1879980] Autopkgtest regression report (initramfs-tools/0.136ubuntu6.3)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-09-04
• [Bug 1879987] Autopkgtest regression report (initramfs-tools/0.136ubuntu6.3)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-09-04
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-02
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-29
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Si-Wei Liu, 2020-10-07
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Jay Vosburgh, 2020-10-07
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Si-Wei Liu, 2020-10-20
• [Bug 1820929] Re: netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Jay Vosburgh, 2020-11-11
• [Bug 1886300] Autopkgtest regression report (util-linux/2.34-0.1ubuntu9.1)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-08-27
• [Bug 1881976] Update Released
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-08-20
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-12
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-31
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-31
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-31
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-01
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-02
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Timo Aaltonen, 2020-09-04
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-08
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-15
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-16
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-16
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-16
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-25
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-25
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-25
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-30
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Alex Murray, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-10-08
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-10-08
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-10-09
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-10-21
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-10-21
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: John Gilmore, 2020-11-02
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-11-03
• [Bug 1879980] Re: Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-11-09
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-12
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-20
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-31
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-08-31
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-01
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-09-02
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Timo Aaltonen, 2020-09-04
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Guilherme G. Piccoli, 2020-09-08
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-15
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-23
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-24
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1879987] Re: machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-10-06
• [Bug 1820929] [NEW] netplan should consider adding more udev attribute for exact matching of failover 3-netdev interfaces
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-12
• [Bug 1881976] Please test proposed package
  From: Timo Aaltonen, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1879980] [NEW] Fail to boot with LUKS on top of RAID1 if the array is broken/degraded
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-05
• [Bug 1879987] [NEW] machine get stuck at boot if specified 'console=ttyS* ' doesn't exist.
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-05
• [Bug 1772556] Update Released
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Jorge Niedbalski, 2020-08-03
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Jorge Niedbalski, 2020-08-03
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Jorge Niedbalski, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1888926] Re: tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-20
• [Bug 1888926] [NEW] tls.tlscfgcmd not recognized; rebuild rsyslog against librelp 1.5.0
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-03
• [Bug 1772556] Autopkgtest regression report (debootstrap/1.0.118ubuntu1.2)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Autopkgtest regression report (debootstrap/1.0.95ubuntu0.7)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-07-27
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Dan Streetman, 2020-07-24
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Mauricio Oliveira, 2020-07-24
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Mauricio Oliveira, 2020-07-24
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Mauricio Oliveira, 2020-07-25
• Message not available
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Mauricio Oliveira, 2020-07-27
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Mauricio Oliveira, 2020-07-29
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Matthew Ruffell, 2020-07-29
• Re: [URGENT] Please review and sponsor LP1772556. This needs to make 18.04.5 LTS.
  From: Dan Streetman, 2020-08-06
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-24
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Matthew Ruffell, 2020-07-28
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Matthew Ruffell, 2020-07-28
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Matthew Ruffell, 2020-07-28
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-07-28
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Matthew Ruffell, 2020-07-29
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mathew Hodson, 2020-07-30
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mathew Hodson, 2020-08-02
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-01
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-01
• [Bug 1772556] Re: d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1772556] [NEW] d-i netinstall fails due to missing apt-transport-https package
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-24
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-27
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-07-29
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-07-29
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-30
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Timo Aaltonen, 2020-07-31
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Marc Deslauriers, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Eric Desrochers, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Adam Kosseck, 2020-08-10
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-08-10
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-08-11
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-08-11
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-08-12
• [Bug 1881976] Re: apport-gtk and apport-kde install xiterm+thai as dependency (x-terminal-emulator)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-08-20
• [Bug 1861177] Update Released
  From: Łukasz Zemczak, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1881976] Re: xiterm+thai installed by default in Ubuntu 20.04 (Australian Locale)
  From: Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot, 2020-07-23
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1881976] Re: xiterm+thai installed by default in Ubuntu 20.04 (Australian Locale)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1881976] Re: xiterm+thai installed by default in Ubuntu 20.04 (Australian Locale)
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1881976] [NEW] xiterm+thai installed by default in Ubuntu 20.04 (Australian Locale)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Seyeong Kim, 2020-07-23
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Seyeong Kim, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Seyeong Kim, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-04
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-05
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-07
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-20
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-20
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Brian Murray, 2020-08-26
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Bug Watch Updater, 2020-08-27
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-27
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: gregrwm, 2020-08-28
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: gregrwm, 2020-08-28
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-08-28
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-09-15
• [Bug 1886300] Re: rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira, 2020-09-22
• [Bug 1885562] Autopkgtest regression report (nss/2:3.49.1-1ubuntu1.3)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-07-22
• [Bug 1885562] Autopkgtest regression report (nss/2:3.35-2ubuntu2.10)
  From: Ubuntu SRU Bot, 2020-07-22
• [Bug 1886300] [NEW] rename.ul refuses to rename links that don't resolve (regression)
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-21
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-15
• <Possible follow-ups>
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Richard Maciel Costa, 2020-07-15
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dan Streetman, 2020-07-16
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-17
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-17
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-17
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Launchpad Bug Tracker, 2020-07-20
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Brian Murray, 2020-07-21
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Brian Murray, 2020-07-21
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-23
• [Bug 1885562] Re: [fips] freebl_fipsSoftwareIntegrityTest fails in FIPS mode
  From: Dariusz Gadomski, 2020-07-27

 •  Take the tour  •  Read the guide  •  Help for mailing lists  

© 2004-2021 Canonical Ltd.  •  Terms of use  •  Data privacy  •  Contact Launchpad Support  •  Blog  •  Careers  •  System status