On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 16:48 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> To the lightdm maintainers: I intend to NMU (to DELAYED/7) to apply
> the patch, unless you object.
Yeah, please refrain. What I needed is an upstream comment on this, which
didn't happen. I'll ping them again on the upstream tracker because
Yves-Alexis Perez writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE
ignored in session"):
> Here it is: https://bugs.launchpad.net/lightdm/+bug/1579867
Thanks.
Ian.
control: forwarded -1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/lightdm/+bug/1579867
On lun., 2016-05-09 at 18:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Yves-Alexis Perez writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE
> ignored in session"):
> >
> > Thanks for the investigation and the patch, I'll forward this
Yves-Alexis Perez writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE
ignored in session"):
> Thanks for the investigation and the patch, I'll forward this upstream for
> comments/integration.
Thanks. Can you post a reference to the upstream discussion here in
the Debian bug, as appropria
On dim., 2016-05-08 at 18:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE
> ignored in session"):
> >
> > Do you want me to send you a patch ?
> The patch is straightforward. See attached.
>
> Also a fixed versio
Control: tags -1 + patch
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored
in session"):
> Do you want me to send you a patch ?
The patch is straightforward. See attached.
Also a fixed version of the glibc patch which gets the checking for
signals other than PIPE r
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored
in session"):
> As previously discussed here, the ignoring of SIGPIPE doesn't seem to
> be done explicitly in the lightdm source code. Having established
> that it is (almost certainly) the lightdm process which is res
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored
in session"):
> I have a plan for how to track this down further. I will get back to
> you.
I applied the attached patch below to my libc, and created the logfile
/var/log/exec-sigignblock.log world-writeable, and reb
Yves-Alexis Perez writes ("Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE
ignored in session"):
> control: severity -1 important
...
> That's very much false in my opinion and experience. A program definitely
> *doesn't* know the signal dispositions it starts with, so if it *needs*
> something
control: severity -1 important
On jeu., 2016-05-05 at 00:31 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> All Unix programs are entitled to assume that they start with
> reasonable signal dispositions, which (with a few exceptions) means
> everything set to SIG_DFL.
That's very much false in my opinion and experie
10 matches
Mail list logo
