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

Re: Unblock request for hal_0.5.11-3



Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> please unblock hal_0.5.11-3
> 
> 
> 
> The changelog between 0.5.11-2 and 0.5.11-3 is:
> 
> hal (0.5.11-3) unstable; urgency=low
> 
>   [ Michael Biebl ]
>   * Remove our custom udev rules file and use the one provided by upstream.
>     - debian/hal.udev.rules: Remove, no longer needed.
>     - debian/rules: Remove the installation of the udev rules file.
>     - debian/hal.links: No longer create the symlink
>       /etc/udev/rules.d/z99_hal.rules. The upstream udev rules file is now
>       directly installed as /etc/udev/rules.d/90-hal.rules.
>     - debian/hal.preinst: Remove the conffile /etc/udev/hal.rules and the
>       z99_hal.rules symlink on upgrades.
>   * debian/control
>     - Bump Standards-Version to 3.8.0. No further changes.
>     - Depend on lsb-base >= 3.2-14, providing status_of_proc().
>   * debian/patches/01_hal_debian_dbuspolicy.patch
>     - Add a "at_console" policy in addition to the group based policies.
>   * debian/hal.init
>     - Add "status" action. (Closes: #492625)
>       Thanks to Tim Bielawa for the patch.
> 
>   [ Loic Minier ]
>   * List lpia arch in libsmbios bdeps and deps.
> 
>  -- Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>  Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:06:13 +0200
> 
> 
> The complete debdiff is attached.
> 
> 
> The important change is in debian/patches/01_hal_debian_dbuspolicy.patch.
> hal is the last package which was missing the at_console policy.
> Together with consolekit_0.2.10-2, which was accepted into lenny just
> today, this allows for an alternative authentication scheme to our group
> based policies.
> 
> The other changes include the addition of a status action to the init
> script (the required lsb-base version is already in lenny)
> and and update to the udev rules file.
> The latest udev package, which is in lenny, has reorganized its udev
> rules files and the hal udev rules file was updated accordingly.

unblocked

Cheers

Luk


Reply to: