[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEX update and next steps

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:19:09PM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:37:25AM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > * http://people.ubuntu.com/patches/kernel_udebs_from_kernel_source.diff
> >   (Discussion: http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2004/11/msg01446.html)
> > [...]
> >   Is anyone here more knowledgeable about the Debian kernel?

I did a bit more investigation and decided that this is not worth pursuing.
The Debian and Ubuntu kernels are indepnedent, so this doesn't represent a
proper delta, and reconsidering how kernel udebs are created in Debian is
outside the scope of this project.

I've marked it as irrelevant.

> > * http://people.ubuntu.com/patches/pbbuttonsd.fixrunlevel.patch
> > [...]
> >   Is anyone here more knowledgeable about pbbuttonsd?
> These still need help!

The relevant Ubuntu bug is:


which explains that the runlevel change was made to ensure that pbbuttonsd
was started before gdm, so that gdm would offer the "suspend computer"

I wonder if this change is actually still solving that problem, given that
gdm is now launched by upstart in Ubuntu, and uses devicekit-power rather
than gnome-power-manager.

gdm in Debian still starts at S30, so I don't think this problem ever
existed in Debian.

I'm marking it as irrelevant.

> > * http://people.ubuntu.com/patches/sysvinit-quietinit.patch
> >   (Debian bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=326677)
> > 
> >   This patch added a "quietinit" boot parameter which would suppress the
> >   "booting" message which was otherwise printed unconditionally.
> > 
> >   It was since dropped in Ubuntu because it's no longer necessary as
> >   the splash screen is started earlier.  Ubuntu subsequently switched to
> >   upstart, so it is doubly unnecessary in Ubuntu.
> > 
> >   It was filed in the Debian BTS by a Debian maintainer, and the bug is
> >   still open, but I think there's probably no point in merging it at this
> >   stage and it should be dropped.
> > 
> >   Would it be OK to simply close this bug and withdraw the patch, or should
> >   we have a discussion with the maintainers first?

I've emailed the bug submitter to check what he wants to do.

 - mdz

Reply to: