Bug#695100: unblock: xmobar/0.14-4
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package xmobar
xmobar version 0.14-4 fixes a parse error when the coretemp plugin is enabled
with wheezy's kernel and multicore CPUs, which renders the coretemp plugin
unusable (see #693025). The problem is fixed by backporting an upstream
commit.
The same version also fixes a lintian warning in xmobar's manpage.
A debdiff between 0.14-3 and 0.14-4 is attached for review.
unblock xmobar/0.14-4
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.6
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (90, 'unstable'), (80, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=el_GR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=el_GR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
diff -Nru xmobar-0.14/debian/changelog xmobar-0.14/debian/changelog
--- xmobar-0.14/debian/changelog 2012-05-24 15:15:23.000000000 +0300
+++ xmobar-0.14/debian/changelog 2012-11-29 11:27:19.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+xmobar (0.14-4) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Backport upstream commit 0b1132, fixing coretemp information parsing
+ (Closes: #693025)
+ * Fix manpage typos
+
+ -- Apollon Oikonomopoulos <apoikos@gmail.com> Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:13:55 +0200
+
xmobar (0.14-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Backport upstream commit daf28d, fixing FTBFS with STM 2.3 (Closes: #674317)
diff -Nru xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/0003-Fix-coretemp-parsing.patch xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/0003-Fix-coretemp-parsing.patch
--- xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/0003-Fix-coretemp-parsing.patch 1970-01-01 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
+++ xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/0003-Fix-coretemp-parsing.patch 2012-11-21 22:26:20.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+From 0b11325f1fb3ac81a72348c2432394233ddc5542 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Jose Antonio Ortega Ruiz <jao@gnu.org>
+Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 03:43:54 +0200
+Subject: [PATCH] Possible solution for coretemp files reading (github issue
+ #38)
+
+Apparently, temp1_label does not follow the same naming pattern as the
+rest of label files.
+---
+ src/Plugins/Monitors/CoreTemp.hs | 10 +++++++---
+ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/src/Plugins/Monitors/CoreTemp.hs b/src/Plugins/Monitors/CoreTemp.hs
+index f7b5c95..2880751 100644
+--- a/src/Plugins/Monitors/CoreTemp.hs
++++ b/src/Plugins/Monitors/CoreTemp.hs
+@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ module Plugins.Monitors.CoreTemp where
+ import Plugins.Monitors.Common
+ import Plugins.Monitors.CoreCommon
+
++
++import Data.Char (isDigit)
++
+ -- |
+ -- Core temperature default configuration. Default template contains only one
+ -- core temperature, user should specify custom template in order to get more
+@@ -31,9 +34,10 @@ coreTempConfig = mkMConfig
+ -- Function retrieves monitor string holding the core temperature
+ -- (or temperatures)
+ runCoreTemp :: [String] -> Monitor String
+-runCoreTemp _ = let path = ["/sys/bus/platform/devices/coretemp.", "/temp", "_input"]
+- lbl = Just ("_label", read . drop 5)
++runCoreTemp _ = let path = ["/sys/bus/platform/devices/coretemp.",
++ "/temp",
++ "_input"]
++ lbl = Just ("_label", read . (dropWhile (not . isDigit)))
+ divisor = 1e3 :: Double
+ failureMessage = "CoreTemp: N/A"
+ in checkedDataRetrieval failureMessage path lbl (/divisor) show
+-
+--
+1.7.10.4
+
diff -Nru xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/series xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/series
--- xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/series 2012-05-24 14:58:40.000000000 +0300
+++ xmobar-0.14/debian/patches/series 2012-11-21 22:26:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
0001-Remove-dependency-for-ghc-s-threaded-runtime
0002-Removed-modifyTVar-to-be-compatible-with-STM-2.3
+0003-Fix-coretemp-parsing.patch
diff -Nru xmobar-0.14/debian/xmobar.1 xmobar-0.14/debian/xmobar.1
--- xmobar-0.14/debian/xmobar.1 2012-05-24 15:04:47.000000000 +0300
+++ xmobar-0.14/debian/xmobar.1 2012-11-29 11:24:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -839,7 +839,7 @@
.RS 2
.PP
\f[CR]
- Run Brightness ["-t", "<bar>"] 60
+ Run Brightness ["\-t", "<bar>"] 60
\f[]
.RE
Reply to: