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

Bug#857742: marked as done (unblock: sddm/0.14.0-4)

Your message dated Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:18:00 +0000
with message-id <f5978299-aa75-0969-0df7-ca0a0ef7583c@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#857742: unblock: sddm/0.14.0-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #857742,
regarding unblock: sddm/0.14.0-4
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 owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
857742: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857742
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Dear release team,

I would like to add some fixes to the sddm currently in stretch. The fixes are 
(sorted in decreasing severity):

 + Fix #853843 regression for radeon.

   The current version of sddm 0.14.0 in stretch triggers a HiDPI QT5 bug
   (#857648) in some video cards, which results in a regression for some users
   of the 0.13.0 version. In order to fix this I've added an upstream patch
   that adds a configuration option for the HiDPI support [1], and also set
   the option to false by default, that way we avoid the regression.

 + Create the home dir if not present (postinst).

   sddm postrm doesn't try to stop the daemon on purge, as, being a display
   manager, it would probably end the user session by doing so. As a result,
   on purge, deluser refuses to delete the system user that's being used, but
   the postrm will happily delete the sddm's homedir. This causes that
   reinstalling sddm after a purge will end up with no homedir, which is
   needed for the normal behavior of sddm.

 + Drop the forced pam_systemd.so rules from the pam rules (#850006)

 + Fix #856195, user facing issue, using the wrong "uri" to check the
   existence of the avatars files [2].

The version of sddm 0.14.0-4 is currently in sid and has already build in all 
the release architectures.

I'm attaching the debdiff from the version 0.14.0-2 currently in testing 
against the requested version 0.14.0-4 currently in unstable.

Please unblock package sddm

Happy hacking,

[1]: https://github.com/sddm/sddm/commit/3441112487e477e146f1ffd532725edcd285eba6
[2]: https://github.com/sddm/sddm/commit/ecb903e48822bd90650bdd64fe80754e3e9664cb

unblock sddm/0.14.0-4

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (50, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386, armhf

Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Maximiliano Curia:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> 
> Dear release team,
> 
> I would like to add some fixes to the sddm currently in stretch. The fixes are 
> (sorted in decreasing severity):
> 
> [...]
> 
> The version of sddm 0.14.0-4 is currently in sid and has already build in all 
> the release architectures.
> 
> I'm attaching the debdiff from the version 0.14.0-2 currently in testing 
> against the requested version 0.14.0-4 currently in unstable.
> 
> Please unblock package sddm
> 
> Happy hacking,
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/sddm/sddm/commit/3441112487e477e146f1ffd532725edcd285eba6
> [2]: https://github.com/sddm/sddm/commit/ecb903e48822bd90650bdd64fe80754e3e9664cb
> 
> unblock sddm/0.14.0-4
> 
> [...]

Unblocked, thanks.

~Niels

--- End Message ---
Reply to: