Bug#704729: unblock: alsa-base/1.0.25+3 (pre-approval)
Hello,
I'm aware it's probably too late, but I feel I need to try. Sorry for the
lack of reaction; I'm outstandingly busy lately. :(
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:50:24AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
The rough story is: alsa-base, until +1, was doing Weird Shit™ with its
handling of /etc/default/alsa, which wasn't even a conffile. When I got
rid of all of that in +2, I accidentally got the new conffile renamed to
/e/d/alsa-base due to using debhelper to install it. The script that
sources it wasn't updated to look in the new location, and of course users
were left with the old conffile and the new one in the filesystem.
The updated package tries to fix this for people upgrading from squeeze
and also for current testing users which already have both files.
Additionally, it marks the package as MA: foreign. SVN also had two old
commits that add a missing pre-dependency on dpkg, and remove redundant
dirs from debian/alsa-base.dirs. If these two old commits are
unacceptable, I'll revert and rebuild, but I've checked that the package
contents are identical.
In order to make this easier, I've reverted the MA and debhelper change.
The only remaining changes are the Pre-Depends and the conffile dance.
I haven't had time to explore mbiebl's suggestion of going the other
route. I'm happy to accept a patch which should be fairly easy to write
based on what I'm attaching now. Needs to happen rsn though, if at all.
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/
jo...@sindominio.net jo...@debian.org http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
diff -Nru alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/alsa alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/alsa
--- alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/alsa 2012-05-20 01:20:03.0 +0200
+++ alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/alsa 2013-04-01 07:05:11.0 +0200
@@ -15,10 +15,10 @@
MYNAME=/usr/sbin/alsa
PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin
-# Default values of variables in /etc/default/alsa
+# Default values of variables in /etc/default/alsa-base
force_unload_modules_before_suspend=
-[ -f /etc/default/alsa ] . /etc/default/alsa
+[ -f /etc/default/alsa-base ] . /etc/default/alsa-base
# $* MESSAGE
warn() { echo ${MYNAME}: Warning: $* 2 ; }
diff -Nru alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/alsa-base.postrm alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/alsa-base.postrm
--- alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/alsa-base.postrm 2012-05-20 14:23:19.0 +0200
+++ alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/alsa-base.postrm 2013-04-04 06:50:44.0 +0200
@@ -5,6 +5,9 @@
if [ $1 = purge ]; then
# Remove run time files
rm -rf /var/run/alsa
+
+ # Remove stray file
+ rm -f /etc/default/alsa
fi
#DEBHELPER#
diff -Nru alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/alsa-base.preinst alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/alsa-base.preinst
--- alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/alsa-base.preinst 2012-07-08 23:49:56.0 +0200
+++ alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/alsa-base.preinst 2013-04-19 09:53:15.0 +0200
@@ -12,4 +12,28 @@
[ -d /etc/apm ]rmdir --ignore-fail-on-non-empty /etc/apm
fi
+case $1 in
+install|upgrade)
+ # Handle upgrade of /etc/default/alsa → /etc/default/alsa-base
+ if [ -f /etc/default/alsa ]; then
+ OLDMD5SUM=b0f9824c2d4288aa89df3777668f0d99
+ CURMD5SUM=$(md5sum /etc/default/alsa | sed -e 's/ .*//')
+ # Upgrades prior to the file rename
+ if dpkg --compare-versions $2 lt 1.0.25+2; then
+ if [ $OLDMD5SUM = $CURMD5SUM ]; then
+rm -f /etc/default/alsa
+ # Don't overwrite the file if it already existed
+ elif [ ! -f /etc/default/alsa-base ]; then
+mv /etc/default/alsa /etc/default/alsa-base
+ fi
+ # Upgrades from current testing: both files exist
+ # If the old file was modified, just leave it there
+ elif dpkg --compare-versions $2 lt 1.0.25+3; then
+ if [ $OLDMD5SUM = $CURMD5SUM ]; then
+rm -f /etc/default/alsa
+ fi
+ fi
+ fi
+esac
+
#DEBHELPER#
diff -Nru alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/changelog alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/changelog
--- alsa-base-1.0.25+2+nmu2/debian/changelog 2012-08-26 17:57:22.0 +0200
+++ alsa-base-1.0.25+3/debian/changelog 2013-04-19 09:51:08.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,20 @@
+alsa-base (1.0.25+3) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Add Pre-Depends dpkg (= 1.15.7.2~), for dpkg-maintscript-helper.
+ * In 1.0.25+2, we started using dh_installinit to install the
+default file as /etc/default/alsa-base, and make it a proper conffile.
+However, the alsa script still expected to read defaults from
+/etc/default/alsa. Update it to use the new path (closes: #680914).
+Additionally, make sure that if we're upgrading from versions prior to
+this change, and a /etc/default/alsa file already exists and its
+md5sum isn't known, it'll get renamed to alsa-base in order to
+preserve user changes.
+For testing users, the old file will be removed if it was pristine,
+and otherwise it'll stay unused in the filesystem.
+ * Try to remove /etc/default/alsa
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_ia64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_kfreebsd-amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_kfreebsd-i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_mips.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_mipsel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_powerpc.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_s390.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xorg-server_1.7.7-16_sparc.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xen_4.0.1-5.10_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xen_4.0.1-5.10_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xen_4.0.1-5.9_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: xen_4.0.1-5.9_i386.changes ACCEPT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1utbbu-00087m...@franck.debian.org
Bug#705718: RM: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 705718 - rm usertag 705718 + unblock retitle 705718 unblock: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5.1 kthxbye On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 21:12:15 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Severity: normal Please consider removing openvpn-auth-ldap. It seems to be incompatible with gobjc 4.7 (bug #641811). It has no reverse dependencies. NAK. I uploaded a fix instead. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#705718: RM: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: user release.debian@packages.debian.org Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was jcris...@debian.org). usertag 705718 - rm Usertags were: rm. Usertags are now: . usertag 705718 + unblock There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: unblock. retitle 705718 unblock: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5.1 Bug #705718 [release.debian.org] RM: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5 Changed Bug title to 'unblock: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5.1' from 'RM: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5' kthxbye Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 705718: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=705718 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.136639191430764.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#705718: marked as done (unblock: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5.1)
Your message dated Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:44:50 +0100 with message-id 1366393490.23177.5.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org and subject line Re: Bug#705718: RM: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #705718, regarding unblock: openvpn-auth-ldap/2.0.3-5.1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 705718: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=705718 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Severity: normal Please consider removing openvpn-auth-ldap. It seems to be incompatible with gobjc 4.7 (bug #641811). It has no reverse dependencies. Thanks, Mike ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 19:18 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 21:12:15 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: Please consider removing openvpn-auth-ldap. It seems to be incompatible with gobjc 4.7 (bug #641811). It has no reverse dependencies. NAK. I uploaded a fix instead. Unblocked; thanks. Regards, Adam---End Message---
Bug#699624: marked as done (unblock: blcr/0.8.5-1)
Your message dated Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:36:24 +0100 with message-id 1366396584.23177.7.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org and subject line Re: Bug#699624: unblock: blcr/0.8.5-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #699624, regarding unblock: blcr/0.8.5-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 699624: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699624 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package blcr 0.8.5-1 is the official upstream release that adds support for more recent kernels and fixes a number of other bugs which were discovered. This version fixes #638339 in the preferred way. #638339 was originally closed with a less than ideal interim workaround which disabled the kernel module. It was subsequently reopened. 0.8.5-1 is a proper, upstream supported complete fix which has seen extensive testing in experimental and more widely in the community that use it unblock blcr/0.8.5-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.6 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 13:15 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 12:30 +, Alan Woodland wrote: I'm confident that this is the right version to release with. A couple of comments, having read back through the earlier discussion regarding the proposal to remove the package. In CAD2JkJeRD5fZHdiL1tmc4OqTM=gdGt=nn+u6oqffutpuram...@mail.gmail.com, you indicated that [t]he library behaves sanely without the kernel module. If that's the case then I'm a little dubious about the merits of re-adding the module package at this late stage of the freeze. In the absence of any feedback, I've unblocked the package in the hope that doing so better serves users and that it will survive happily for wheezy's stable cycle. Regards, Adam---End Message---
Bug#702548: pu: package libssh/0.4.5-3+squeeze2
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 16:01 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 10:09 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote: I'm planning to upload a fix for bug #698963 (CVE-2013-0176) in stable-proposed-updates. CVE-2013-0176 is about a DOS in the server code that can be triggered in some situations. In general, we prefer full debdiffs, including changelog entries. Assuming that the package has been tested on a stable system, please go ahead; thanks. Ping? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1366396706.23177.8.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#704520: marked as done (RM: midgard2-core/10.05.7.1-1 php5-midgard2/10.05.7-1)
Your message dated Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:19:25 +0100 with message-id 20130419191925.ga7...@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net and subject line Re: Bug#704520: RM: midgard2-core/10.05.7.1-1 php5-midgard2/10.05.7-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #704520, regarding RM: midgard2-core/10.05.7.1-1 php5-midgard2/10.05.7-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 704520: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704520 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Hi dear Release Team, hi dear midgard2-core and php5-midgard2 maintainers, as explained in http://bugs.debian.org/677795#67 , I think midgard2-core (and it's only build-rdep, php5-midgard2) should get removed from testing: As I read it, the package had several packaging-related issues summing up to that serious bug, filed two weeks before the freeze. Since then, in September, a package supposedly fixing these issues has been uploaded and queued in NEW [0]; it hasn't been liberated from NEW yet. From here, I see three ways forward: a) a new package enters unstable, and then Wheezy, but that seems unlikely; b) midgard2-core and php5-midgard2 are removed from Wheezy, thereby removing the RC bug. c) that bug either gets downgraded to non-RC severity, or tagged wheezy-ignore by the release team. As I think the concerns originally leading to the severity of that bug are correct, I would rather be of the opinion to drop the two packages. As you see, I think that as this point, b) is the only reasonable choice. Cheers, OdyX -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'testing-proposed-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_CH.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CH.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:31:06PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertags 677795 + wheezy-will-remove thanks On 2013-04-02 13:13, Didier Raboud wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Hi dear Release Team, hi dear midgard2-core and php5-midgard2 maintainers, as explained in http://bugs.debian.org/677795#67 , I think midgard2-core (and it's only build-rdep, php5-midgard2) should get removed from testing: As I read it, the package had several packaging-related issues summing up to that serious bug, filed two weeks before the freeze. Since then, in September, a package supposedly fixing these issues has been uploaded and queued in NEW [0]; it hasn't been liberated from NEW yet. From here, I see three ways forward: a) a new package enters unstable, and then Wheezy, but that seems unlikely; b) midgard2-core and php5-midgard2 are removed from Wheezy, thereby removing the RC bug. c) that bug either gets downgraded to non-RC severity, or tagged wheezy-ignore by the release team. As I think the concerns originally leading to the severity of that bug are correct, I would rather be of the opinion to drop the two packages. As you see, I think that as this point, b) is the only reasonable choice. Cheers, OdyX [...] We have not accepted new (binary) packages in Wheezy for quite a while. So option a) is indeed very unlikely. As it is, I am inclined to agree with OdyX's observations, so I am tagging the bug as will-remove for now. So am I, removal hint added. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Processed: closing 692358
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: close 692358 Bug #692358 [release.debian.org] unblock php5-midgard2/10.05.7-1 Marked Bug as done thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 692358: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=692358 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.136639923322565.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#688966: marked as done (unblock: midgard2-core/10.05.7.1-2)
Your message dated Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:42:24 +0100 with message-id 20130419214224.gd7...@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net and subject line Re: Bug#688966: Bug#677795: Bug#688966: Review midgard2-core package has caused the Debian Bug report #688966, regarding unblock: midgard2-core/10.05.7.1-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 688966: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688966 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Please review midgard2-core for inclusion in squeeze. Package contains only one RC bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677795 New source package which fixes the bug (with renamed packages) is waiting in queue ,marked as NEW. Package itself doesn't containt any upstream changes. Also there is related package 'php5-midgard2' which can be uploaded to unstable and rebuilt due to dependency name change. Piotras ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 08:24:35AM +0200, Piotr Pokora wrote: Hi! AFAICT midgard2-core is the only package of the two having an open RC bug affecting testing (namely, #677795). So keeping it while removing php5-midgard2 from testing would not help us (from a release PoV). Note that php5-midgard2 is only being removed because it (Build-)Depnds on midgard2-core and (I presumed) it would be useless without midgard2-core. Yes, php5-midgard2 is useless without midgard2-core. However midgard2-core provides GObject Introspection so other languages can still be used (python, javascript, vala). A bit annoying thing to me is that midgard2-core package is affected by RC bug, which is fixed in the package we talk about. I know this is a big binary change. But it couldn't be fixed other way and it's been fixed 300 days ago. Back to that time, I could keep it as is, and it would be excluded due to unresolved bug. When it's been resolved, it's excluded cause of bug fix. As midgard2-core is hinted for removal, I am also closing this request. Sorry it couldn't work out better. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#704524: unblock: nbd/1:3.2-4
Control: tag -1 + d-i On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 08:24:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, On 02-04-13 15:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi Steven, On 02-04-13 14:51, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Wouter, You had a FTBFS on mips which would need to be fixed in any case. E: listing not allowed by server. FAIL: list That sounds like it might be related to this change you mentioned? But seems odd it would only occur on one architecture: It's not the only failure in the test suite; looking at the tests that failed, my guess is that there is another nbd-server running on the buildd in question. Mips buildd admins: can you please verify if that is the case? If so (and it's not genuinely installed), please kill it and reschedule the build, it should work then. (I discovered a while back that the nbd-server test suite did not properly kill the running server, which opens port 10809 by default. I thought I fixed that, but I might be mistaken...) It built now, but the package still hasn't been unblocked. Can I please get a reply now either way about whether this unblock is going to happen? I'm afraid at this stage it's pretty unlikely. You will also need an ack from d-i, and whilst I don't speak for KiBi I think that even more unlikely. Closing for now so it gets off the list; if you wish to reopen with further discussion please feel free. Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#704524: unblock: nbd/1:3.2-4
Processing control commands: tag -1 + d-i Bug #704524 [release.debian.org] unblock: nbd/1:3.2-4 Added tag(s) d-i. -- 704524: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704524 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b704524.13664095667771.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: closing 704524
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: close 704524 Bug #704524 [release.debian.org] unblock: nbd/1:3.2-4 Marked Bug as done thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 704524: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704524 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.13664098329826.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Auto-loading lxfb on OLPC XO systems
The x86-based OLPC XO systems apparently don't support a VGA-compatible text mode, so text consoles on these systems require the lxfb driver. This was previously built-in to the i386 kernel images, but for reasons explained in in #686528 it was changed to a module. The module can be auto-loaded based on a PCI device ID. However, framebuffer drivers are generally blacklisted for auto-loading by a configuration file installed in udev, and lxfb is included in this blacklist. This will result in a regression when upgrading one of these systems from squeeze. (Although I don't think Debian kernel images have ever had complete support for them.) I've opened bug #705784 for this against udev, and Marco has said he's willing for me to NMU it. Alternately, in the kernel, I can revert the change to a module, or rename the module to evade the blacklist, but neither of those is particularly nice. But I think any kernel changes now are going to be too disruptive to the installer. Can the release team recommend what to do? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
