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

xorg: Changes to 'debian-experimental'



 debian/changelog            |    8 +++++++-
 debian/x11-common.config.in |    4 ++--
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

New commits:
commit b3c1b5943f8273bdcf52d1d656b617b654d98146
Author: Colin Watson <cjwatson@ubuntu.com>
Date:   Fri Mar 23 16:58:58 2007 +0100

    debian/xserver-xorg.config.in: fix LP #68267.
    
    Improve expr return code handling in validate_nice_value; don't use
    run function when we need to check db_input's return value.

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index d06f270..d8edbbb 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,9 +1,15 @@
 xorg (1:7.2-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
 
+  [ Julien Cristau ]
   * Add support for kfreebsd-{amd64,i386} (closes: #363910).  Thanks,
     Robert Millan and Daniel Stone!
 
- -- Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>  Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:58:27 +0100
+  [ Colin Watson ]
+  * debian/xserver-xorg.config.in: Improve expr return code handling in
+    validate_nice_value; don't use run function when we need to check
+    db_input's return value (LP: #68267).
+
+ -- Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>  Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:54:08 +0100
 
 xorg (1:7.2-1) experimental; urgency=low
 
diff --git a/debian/x11-common.config.in b/debian/x11-common.config.in
index 6eef02f..34dca3d 100644
--- a/debian/x11-common.config.in
+++ b/debian/x11-common.config.in
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ validate_nice_value () {
   # (expr is noisy, always throw away its output)
   set +e
   expr "$1" - "$1" > /dev/null 2>&1
-  if [ $? -ne 2 ]; then
+  if [ $? -eq 1 ]; then
     # now check for valid range
     if expr "$1" ">=" "-20" > /dev/null 2>&1 &&
        expr "$1" "<=" "19" > /dev/null 2>&1; then
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ fi
 
 set +e
 while :; do
-  run db_input low x11-common/xwrapper/nice_value
+  db_input low x11-common/xwrapper/nice_value
   # is the question going to be asked?
   if [ $? -eq 30 ]; then
     break # no; bail out of validation loop



Reply to: