"Cancel", "Next", and "Sign In" functioning incorrectly on login or locked screen in "Sign In?" section

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. The issue you are reporting is an upstream one and it would be nice if somebody having it could send the bug to the developers of the software by following the instructions at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/GNOME. If you have done so, please tell us the number of the upstream bug (or the link), so we can add a bugwatch that will inform us about its status. Thanks in advance.

Re-assigning to gnome-shell since that draws the UI, still broken as of gnome-shell 3.17.4

Ok, I have now also reported the bug here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=753004

It appears that someone else already reported this bug here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752739 So my report has been marked as duplicate.

those fixes look fine to backport, if you want to help with that, it would be great!

Just let me know how and I would be happy to help.

have you done any debian packaging? you would need to cherrypick the patches from git (its probably ok to squash the 3 into 1) and then apply to gnome-shell package using quilt. Then test build (using a ppa is probably easiest).

Ok, everything is now going well, and it should be ready shortly.

Ok, all is done, I have created a deb file, although I have not changed the conversioning information, I hope that that is ok? You should be able to change that information if you want to, however I found that so many files contained the current version number, that I was unable to change all of them, so I just decided to leave them.

How do you want me to get you the deb file?

I said deb file, I meant files, there are three of them... Just thought I should clarify before I caused confusion.

I previously said that I have not changed the "conversioning" information, I meant "versioning". Sorry, autocorrect...

use 'dch -i' to create a new changelog entry, that is what changes the version

Then create a debdiff with 'debdiff <your_new>.dsc <current_ubuntu>.dsc' and attach here

Assigning Importance Low and Status Triaged to match the overall gnome-shell bug (in the in-devel release), for uniformity.

Just so you know what happened, I found that the base version of the patches, was different to that of the current version. So I had to reverse engineer the patches and manually apply them, although I did also use quilt, but not to apply. So I have now got the debdiff file. And have attached it here. Its compiling was successfully, however as my testing environment broke earlier today, I have been unable to further test it. But it should work.

For the record: they asked for some help in Ask Ubuntu Chat, and I assisted.

Here's what I did to assist:

(1) Walked them through the use of `quilt`. Stated that they should have each upstream patch as its own in `quilt` because of the Origin dep3 headers, but that can be debated.
(2) Spot-checked their backporting of the patch. They had a couple style errors and indentation on their first bits.
(3) Guided them with the DEP3 headers. Because they're needed.
(4) Stylistic suggestions / revisions to their changelog entry, cause they didn't state what files were added/changed/etc. which is important in a changelog.

Additional things:
(5) BUILD TEST! Built in sbuild with a vivid-amd64 test.

What needs to be done is a runtime test, possibly with this landing in -proposed and then being 'installed' from -proposed as a test to see if it resolves the problems.

(It's also why I was doing some minor triage of the bug, 'cause they asked for help)

@Thomas Ward, thank you for that help.

@The Unknown (yerenkov-scott):

No problem, glad to help where I can. Besides, you're learning new things, which is the goal so you don't have to rely on others to guide you in the future. That's what the whole 'learning experience' thing is about, and I don't mind helping you learn new things like how to do what we've done here. :)

The attachment "lp1479014_vivid_v1.debdiff" seems to be a debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If the attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are member of the ~ubuntu-sponsors, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issue please contact him.]

@Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot,

 Sorry, that was in error that I marked that as a patch. I have now removed the tag, and unmarked it as a patch.

Um... actually, you shouldn't have done that, yerenkov-scott. This is a debdiff, and a patch, and it needs Ubuntu Sponsors to look at it, especially for SRU. You also need to get this bug into the SRU format. Read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure

@Thomas, thanks for helping out yerenkov-scott on this one. As a general note, its usually fine to just use the git headers for cherrypicked patches, no real need for DEP3 headers in that case.

@yerenkov-scott I will sponsor this however it all seems incredibly verbose, particularly your SRU details, try and keep it a bit shorter, there is no real to split it out into seperate bugs, just a single description of the main issue would have been fine. Also you missed the regression potential section

@Thomas, well atleast for GNOME patches, which nearly always have bug links etc in the headers, can't really speak for other projects

@Tim, Ok, I am not sure how to make it shorter, I have done my best to write it in the best way I can, if you can think of a better way of putting it all then please do, but I have done my best. I missed the regression potential section because I am not sure what potential regressions exist, so I wouldn't know what to put in that section because I do not know of any, if you could give me some better advice for what to put in that section then please do.

@Tim (darkxst) ACK on that. Note that he *did* have to backport the patches and adjust them, as they didn't cleanly apply apparently, from what he told me in other chats, so I'm not sure the git headers would survive that process. "The Unknown" also has said that he's also unsure of regression potentials.

Note that that I try and avoid desktop packages like the plague, usually, and triage thereof, I'm hesitant about the procedure here.

Also, I'm not actually subscribed to this bug, as I already get server team bugs and several other packages' bugs, as well as USNs and DSAs, and security updates from other sources, so my emails and bug attentiveness levels are already innundated.

I'll remember what you said in the future though.

------
Thomas

@Tim, Ok, well I have tried my best to do the regressions potential section, although I understand that it may not be up to standards, but at least I found something to put in there.

@Tim, I was recently alerted to the fact that those patches also cause this bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=753181 There are patches available to fix the bug caused by the other patches, what do you want me to do? Create a new debdiff? Add to the old? Or would this be for a different bug report with a new debdiff applying the patches?

As this is the sort of thing that I would assume goes in the regression potential section, I have included details of it there.

@Tim, or would you prefer to deal with it? Although I would be happy to if you want?

At this point I would suggest you try and get upstream to make a new point release (i.e. 3.16.4) that would be more preferable than pulling in the 6 odd patches that are required to fix this bug!

How should I get them to do that? Do I just file a new bug report or try and get in contact with them? Also, does this mean that the debdiff will be scrapped, or will that still go in?

email gnome-shell list.

For vivid it will need backport so 6 patches, not sure thats worth but if you want to prepare ok, can push though

On 11/08/15 19:41, The Unknown wrote:
> How should I get them to do that? Do I just file a new bug report or try
> and get in contact with them? Also, does this mean that the debdiff will
> be scrapped, or will that still go in?
>

@Tim, ok, I'll make the debdiff, also you refer to 6 patches, but I only see 5, as we have the 3 I have already done, and then 2 in the new bug report, so where's the 6th one? Or are there only 5?

As I could not find the 3rd patch you said you wanted me to add in, I have added the two in the bug report: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=753181 There seem to only be 2 extra patches needed to fix the bugs. If there is another patch which needs to be included, please let me know and I'd be happy to do so. I have generated a new debdiff with all 5 patches in it. And also updated the description, although my information on reproducing the last 2 bugs is a little vague because I have not actually experienced them as I would need to test the other patches in a testing environment to get the 2 other new bugs, and I have not. I have now also attached the new debdiff.

see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752438, that is what caused bug 753181

@Tim, ok, I did not see that one, but I would be happy to add it in and I should be able to give you a new debdiff with it included by the end of the day if not sooner.

@Tim, ok, I have applied that patch, and created a new debdiff with all 6 patches in it and attached it here. Let me know if you need anything else.

This bug was fixed in the package gnome-shell - 3.16.4-0ubuntu1

---------------
gnome-shell (3.16.4-0ubuntu1) wily; urgency=medium

  * New upstream release
    - fixes issues with gdm Auth prompt LP: #1479014

 -- Tim Lunn <email address hidden> Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:43:05 +1100

This has been fixed in wily, I don't think its a good idea to sru 7 different patches into vivid at this late stage in the cycle (it will be EOL in a few months). For the most part these are largely cosmetic fixes and clearly some of these patches caused regressions, hence the large number of patches, so its not clear if other patches have been missed.