It’s not the same as #590829 after all: despite the similarities, the recipe given at #590829 does not reproduce the issue for me.

Tab completion of directory paths containing single quotes is broken like so:

$ mkdir -p ”a’b/c”
$ cd a\’b/ # pressing tab won’t complete the ’c’ dir

as opposed to:

$ mkdir -p ”de/f”
$ cd de/ # pressing tab here completes the ’f’ dir just fine, to ’de/f/’

I initially thought this was Bug #1485777, but the reason I’m not so sure anymore is that for me, a manually appended \’ does not disappear (unlike for the reporter of #1485777). This does however also seem like a regression back to the issue of Bug #590829.

Just adding a note that this does still occur under 14.04, to which I recently upgraded. Naturally this was to be expected, given that the issue first occurred after switching to the Trusty HWE pack in 12.04.

Spoke too soon: looks like the context menu for links just also turned affected. I swear they still worked correctly when I was writing the previous comment!

I can reproduce this on a two-monitor setup: right-clicking in Chromium on the right monitor brings up context menu on the left monitor. Right-clicking on the left monitor works as expected.

I cannot reproduce the workaround: here the context menu opens on the left monitor no matter how close to the right edge of the right monitor I right-click Chromium.

I recently upgraded from 12.04 to 14.04, and this issue appeared with the upgrade. 12.04 currently has Chromium 37.0.2062.120, whereas 14.04 has version 44.0.2403.89.

Upstream has a similar bug report about right-clicking links [1], but for me at least right-clicking links is *not* affected: the issue occurs only for the tabs’ context menu and for web page right-clicks outside links, whereas the context menu of links opens on the right monitor.

Also, LP bug #1430393 [2] looks related, and is also reproducible here: (left-clicking) the main menu button also opens the menu on the wrong monitor.

* [1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=409287
* [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/1430393

The Unity Dash context menu for Rhythmbox currently has separate items for ”Play” and ”Pause”. I think Totem does better by eliminating those for a single ”Play/Pause” item which does both. I also think the interface should be consistent across these two applications. Rhythmbox-client even supports the same parameter as totem for this (–play-pause), so I created a patch for rhythmbox.desktop based on totem.desktop, which should accomplish what I’m after.

Using the KDE4 GUI (on a regular Ubuntu Unity desktop), the log prints (at least some) Scandinavian characters wrongly. I’ll attach a screenshot for demonstration. Meanwhile, the log viewer of the Gnome GUI displays the same characters without problems (I’ll attach a screenshot of that as well).

jani@saegusa:~$ apt-cache policy backintime-kde4
backintime-kde4:
Asennettu: 1.0.36~precise
Ehdokas: 1.0.36~precise
Versiotaulukko:
*** 1.0.36~precise 0
500 http://ppa.launchpad.net/bit-team/stable/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

jani@saegusa:~$ locale
LANG=fi_FI.UTF-8
LANGUAGE=fi:en
LC_CTYPE=fi_FI.UTF-8
LC_NUMERIC=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_TIME=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_COLLATE=fi_FI.UTF-8
LC_MONETARY=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_MESSAGES=fi_FI.UTF-8
LC_PAPER=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_NAME=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_ADDRESS=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_TELEPHONE=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_MEASUREMENT=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_IDENTIFICATION=”fi_FI.UTF-8″
LC_ALL=

I can, but it’ll be hard to get definitive evidence as the phenomenon can be quite elusive, and I cannot run the daily for very long periods (as it gets in the way of productivity). Obviously, if I catch it even once on the daily, it’ll be proof enough that the issue persists, but on the other hand, not seeing the issue may just mean it didn’t happen to occur during the time running from the daily.

(Upgrading the system to latest release would be a surer way to find out, but for now I intend to keep running 12.04 until the next LTS, 16.04.)

Hi Christopher, the apport-collected data above was gathered from my main desktop, which only has Intel graphics. (I mentioned the other system with Radeon just because it *didn’t* suffer from this problem despite having the same software. I no longer have access to that system so unfortunately I can’t provide the same logs from it for comparision.)

Note: I’m attaching a video below demonstrating the issue. In it I’m reproducing the problem with the amd64 ISO of 15.04.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Have a (virtual) machine with a clean 10 GB hard disk and 8 GB of RAM.
2. Start the installer, select ”Erase disk and install Ubuntu”, click ”Install now”.

What happens:
A ”Do you want to return to the partitioner?” window pops up, saying ”Some of the partitions you created are too small. Please make the following partitions at least this large:

/ 3.5 GB

If you do not go back to the partitioner and increase the size of these partitions, the installation may fail.”

Selecting Continue then goes on to an installation which fails due to lack of space as promised. This is because the installer has partitioned the disk with a 8+ GB swap partition, and only what remains of the 10 GB after that allocated to /.

What I expect to happen:
I know this is a tricky corner case, but I think there are better ways to deal with it than exhibited by the installer above. Here are some alternative suggestions I came up with:

1) change the way the disk space requirement is calculated for the ”Preparing to install” view: make it require at least the minimum ”/” size + expected swap size, thus notifying the user beforehand if the requirement is not met. (As you see in the video, currently it has the green checkmark even when the installer is about to fail predictably.)

2) have the installer select a partitioning scheme where ”/” is the minimum required and allocate whatever remains for swap; warn the user that swap will be too small to do hibernation.

3) at the very least, have the ”Do you want to return to the partitioner?” window describe the situation better. It was the biggest source of confusion for me because the wording implied I had partitioned the disk (which I hadn’t done) and prompting me to ”return to the partitioner” where I hadn’t been to.