Blank login history from user accounts

[Rey Leonard Amorato]

As shown in the screenshot, login history is always blank.

uname output:
Linux RGPC 4.4.0-32-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 19 18:09:07 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

lsb_release output:
Description: Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS
Release: 16.04

package version:
unity-control-center:
  Installed: 15.04.0+16.04.20160705-0ubuntu1
  Candidate: 15.04.0+16.04.20160705-0ubuntu1
  Version table:
 *** 15.04.0+16.04.20160705-0ubuntu1 500
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-updates/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     15.04.0+16.04.20160413-0ubuntu1 500
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/main amd64 Packages

[Rey Leonard Amorato (rl.amorato)]

I don't think this is a duplicate as I don't have any output at all on my window. (see screenshot)

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

Hi Rey,

Please see comment #16 in that bug report. The issue is being worked on, and marking this as a duplicate makes things easier. It doesn't mean your bug report isn't valid. ;)

Thanks!

[Rey Leonard Amorato (rl.amorato)]

Ok, I must've missed that while I was skimming through the comments.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Davide (tarski10)]

Bug #1443052 was fixed but this is still present

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

It was fixed in yakkety:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-control-center/15.04.0+16.10.20161003.1-0ubuntu1

but not in xenial as it seems.

Marking this a duplicate of bug #1380364, then. (Can't tell if there is a plan to backport the fix to xenial.)

[Davide (tarski10)]

Thanks for your prompt reply,
are you saying that normally a fix is applied only to the package version of the current stable release and not to the package versions of the previous supported releases (LTS included)?

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj)]

Fixes are done in the development release at first hand, which at the time for this fix was yakkety. I can confirm that it works on 16.10, btw.

Whether to backport to one or more stable releases or not depends on the importance of the bug and available developer time to spend on the issue. I'm not the decision maker, but my guess is that if you want it to be backported to xenial, your options are to either convince a developer that it's important enough or provide a patch yourself.

[Davide (tarski10)]

Thank you again, now I have understood.