[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: closed by Yves-Alexis Perez <cor...@debian.org> (Bug#823460: fixed in lightdm 1.18.2-3)

Debian Bug Tracking System writes ("Bug#823460 closed by Yves-Alexis Perez (Bug#823460: fixed in lightdm 1.18.2-3)"): > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the lightdm package: > > #823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

. Please would you confirm that this bug is RC. To the lightdm maintainers: I intend to NMU (to DELAYED/7) to apply the patch, unless you object. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

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. ___ Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list Pkg-xfce-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

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

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

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 ot

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

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 li

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

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

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

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

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#823460: lightdm: SIGPIPE ignored in session

Package: lightdm Version: 1.18.1-1 Severity: serious I have just discovered that my entire X session is running with SIGPIPE ignored. I think this is the fault of lightdm - see below. All Unix programs are entitled to assume that they start with reasonable signal dispositions, which (with a

Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

Jordi Mallach writes (Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop): It's been around 9 months since tasksel changed (for real) the default desktop for new installs. At the time of the change, it was mentioned the issue would be revisited before the freeze, around debconf time. Fascinating

Re: [Pkg-xfce-devel] Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop

Gunnar Wolf writes (Re: Reverting to GNOME for jessie's default desktop): And yes, many such computers are currently in use. And it would be a disservice not to provide CDs anymore. But that criteria should not be what guides our default for installation; a CD might not be able to have the