I am curious about how a contributor can make a change like making "SHMConfig" not default and be allowed to cause a regression like this. If there is supposedly a safe way to add this functionality back why wasn't code to do so included with the patch that removed it in the first place? Is making changes without fixing the fallout acceptable if the change is done in the name of security? That probably makes sense but I still feel like the contributor should make fixing resulting regressions a priority after the fact. Gabor seems to be making an effort but apparently he doesn't have the right info, can we get the person who does (maybe the person that caused this and/or added the replacement interface) to help him out at least with some specific advice about a strategy for making use of the replacement interface?
Thanks for working on this guys. -- SHMConfig should be enabled by default, and gsynaptics should be installed by default on laptops https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155937 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
