February 2016 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 964357] lilypond-book/pdflatex: LaTeX Error: Environment lilypond undefined.
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964357 Chenzi Cao <chenzi.cao(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bnc-team-screening(a)forge.pr |davejplater(a)gmail.com |ovo.novell.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 964355] latest udev update introduces error in systemd-udev-root-symlink.service that stops it from starting properly
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964355 Marcus Meissner <meissner(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |meissner(a)suse.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 964256] Missing QtBluetooth library in python(3)-qt5 package
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964256 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964256#c2 --- Comment #2 from Bernhard Wiedemann <bwiedemann(a)suse.com> --- This is an autogenerated message for OBS integration: This bug (964256) was mentioned in https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/357062 Factory / python-qt5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 964256] Missing QtBluetooth library in python(3)-qt5 package
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964256 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964256#c1 --- Comment #1 from Luca Beltrame <lbeltrame(a)kde.org> --- Thanks for the report. For a start, I have enabled Bluetooth support in Tumbleweed. If this is accepted in the distribution, I'll look at how enabling support in Leap. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 957383] request GRUB2 config option to set needed EFI loader options/flags
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383#c12 Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mchang(a)suse.com) | --- Comment #12 from Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to boo35 boo35 from comment #10) > per earlier comment > > > maybe prefixed with 'SUSE_' (if deemed unavoidable). > > it seems that your patch uses the prefix. What's the argument for prefixing > here? Should this be pushed to upstream instead, or at least, later? The SUSE_ is for the feature of chain-loading the xen hypervisor via uefi xen loader which itself a loader and can really be configured separately as different loader. Upstream is working on the direct UEFI multiboot2 support for the xen hypervisor to have it loaded via grub2 native multiboot protocol. The patches we made actually was to ease the integration by yast2 and perl bootloader which uses unified tools from grub2-utils and share the defaults from common place (/etc/default/grub) so that it's doesn’t need to understand how to derive configs from one to another (And grub2 upstream wouldn't depend on how xen loader configs would be generated). Once the multiboot2 support merged, these changes could be reverted to use multiboot2 and leave the xen loader and separated boot path (eg, installed via old style SLE11 scripts). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 957383] request GRUB2 config option to set needed EFI loader options/flags
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383#c11 --- Comment #11 from Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar(a)gmail.com> --- Upstream Xen is working on native multiboot support on EFI which obsoletes efistub approach. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 964354] Package lilypond-doc seems incomplete or broken
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964354 Chenzi Cao <chenzi.cao(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bnc-team-screening(a)forge.pr |davejplater(a)gmail.com |ovo.novell.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 961289] Windows does not boot after installation of Leap
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961289 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961289#c11 Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(axel.braun(a)gmx.de | |) --- Comment #11 from Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> --- Hi Axel, Thanks for uploading the logs. However they looks good to me. The microsoft efi loader was corrected identified and added to the grub.cfg as menu entry "Windows Boot Manager ..." [1] >From your previous comments it seems these are from a working system. Is it possible to get the log from your failure tests ? Thanks. [1] Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal 05efi[3238]: debug: running subtest /usr/lib/os-probes/mounted/efi/20microsoft Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal 20microsoft[3261]: result: Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi:Windows Boot Manager:Windows Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal 05efi[3266]: debug: bootloader Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi:Windows Boot Manager:Windows found by subtest /usr/lib/os-probes/mounted/efi/20microsoft Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal 05efi[3271]: result: /dev/sda1@/EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi:Windows Boot Manager:Windows:efi Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal os-prober[3276]: debug: os detected by /usr/lib/os-probes/mounted/05efi ... Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal 50mounted-tests[3346]: debug: running subtest /usr/lib/os-probes/mounted/20microsoft Jan 28 20:45:16 Connys-Dell.wolf.internal 20microsoft[3349]: debug: Skipping legacy bootloaders on UEFI system ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 957383] request GRUB2 config option to set needed EFI loader options/flags
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383#c10 boo35 boo35 <9b3e05a5(a)opayq.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mchang(a)suse.com) --- Comment #10 from boo35 boo35 <9b3e05a5(a)opayq.com> --- per earlier comment > maybe prefixed with 'SUSE_' (if deemed unavoidable). it seems that your patch uses the prefix. What's the argument for prefixing here? Should this be pushed to upstream instead, or at least, later? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 957383] request GRUB2 config option to set needed EFI loader options/flags
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 01 Feb '16

01 Feb '16

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957383#c9 Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mchang(a)suse.com) | --- Comment #9 from Michael Chang <mchang(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to boo35 boo35 from comment #7) > I'm not clear whether it's order sensitive or not. > Is it? > Worth a closer check. The command line option, specified via SUSE_CMDLINE_XENEFI, only acts as options to "uefi xen loader" and not intended to be interpreted by xen hypverisor and xen kernel, so that it's irrelevant to contents of xen-<version>.cfg. The order of $SUSE_CMDLINE_XENEFI and $sections might be sensitive depending on how uefi xen loader parses it's command line options. But looking at how it handles them it seems really not matters if you put them as $SUSE_CMDLINE_XENEFI $section or $section $SUSE_CMDLINE_XENEFI Only words in the list starting with - or / treated as options (for xen loader), otherwise it's name of section in xen-<version>.cfg to be used. But I think it's good practice to put command options before the input (files) to get things clear, as what Raymund has suggested in his comment#2. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0