Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Add patches necessary for gnome-lirc-properties|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Bastien Nocera <bnocera>|
|Component:||lirc||Assignee:||Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-06-10 17:37:43 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Bastien Nocera 2008-04-13 07:56:47 EDT
https://code.fluendo.com/remotecontrol/svn/trunk/patches/ contains two patches which are necessary to get gnome-lirc-properties working with lircd. The patches have been submitted upstream: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.lirc/6439 but without much feedback. Both patches seem sane to me, and the resume switch for irrecord is another option, so shouldn't cause problems with existing applications.
Comment 1 Bastien Nocera 2008-04-14 06:12:51 EDT
And an additional patch for include support in lirc.conf, used by gnome-lirc-properties as well: http://patches.ubuntu.com/l/lirc/extracted/27_multiple_include.dpatch
Comment 2 Bastien Nocera 2008-04-14 06:31:52 EDT
Created attachment 302325 [details] lirc-g-l-p-support.patch Patch against CVS. 0001-* needed updating.
Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2008-04-14 14:13:48 EDT
Regarding the "include" patch - wouldn't a lirc.conf.d directory from where all *.conf would be loaded in alphabetical order (in the C locale) be a better option than the include directive? That way new config snippets could be just dropped there and the main config file could stay unmodified or wouldn't even have to exist. Of course if the include directive supported wildcards, lircd.conf.d could be implemented with it (eg. httpd.conf, ld.so.conf style). Apart from that detail, the patches sound sane to me. A clear upstream buy-in would be very much welcome though, I'd rather not maintain non-upstream patches myself in the long term. Of course, more lirc co-maintainers are welcome in case you're willing to maintain these patches if needed (or lirc otherwise) in the future.
Comment 4 Bastien Nocera 2008-04-15 12:16:10 EDT
I talked to Mario, the Ubuntu lirc maintainer, about the include patch. It was submitted upstream: http://www.nabble.com/PATCH%3A-Add-support-for-include-directive-in-lircd.conf-to14545188.html#a14545188 I'll rework the patch to fix the problems Christoph mentioned.
Comment 5 Bastien Nocera 2008-04-16 10:13:40 EDT
Updated patch posted. It changes the syntax for include as well, for which gnome-lirc-properties would need to be updated.
Comment 6 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-11 08:13:52 EDT
(In reply to comment #3) > Regarding the "include" patch - wouldn't a lirc.conf.d directory from where all > *.conf would be loaded in alphabetical order (in the C locale) be a better > option than the include directive? That way new config snippets could be just > dropped there and the main config file could stay unmodified or wouldn't even > have to exist. Of course if the include directive supported wildcards, > lircd.conf.d could be implemented with it (eg. httpd.conf, ld.so.conf style). The patch has been accepted upstream. I snatched it from the upstream CVS, and updated the patch in the patch. > Apart from that detail, the patches sound sane to me. A clear upstream buy-in > would be very much welcome though, I'd rather not maintain non-upstream patches > myself in the long term. Of course, more lirc co-maintainers are welcome in > case you're willing to maintain these patches if needed (or lirc otherwise) in > the future. I'm not that hot on maintaining lirc, but I'd be happy to look at any problems with the patches I'm providing.
Comment 7 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-11 08:14:38 EDT
Created attachment 305060 [details] lirc-g-l-p-support-2.patch Updated patch with upstream include support.
Comment 8 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-12 09:39:21 EDT
Created attachment 305125 [details] lirc-g-l-p-support-3.patch Minus init files changes from bug 442341
Comment 9 Jarod Wilson 2008-05-12 18:14:10 EDT
Personally, I prefer patch attachments as patches, not patches that generate patches, those are too hard to review without actually applying them, and whether or not to apply them is one of the things to be considered when reviewing them... :) Anyhow, I've gone ahead and patched in the upstream include support, but not the other bits that aren't upstream, as I've not looked at them all that closely just yet.
Comment 10 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-13 15:19:18 EDT
The other 2 patches are similar to what was posted upstream. The first one needed a shoehorn to get in, but that's about it.
Comment 11 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-13 15:20:25 EDT
Created attachment 305285 [details] 0001-Use-new-instead-of-conf-as-filename-suffix.patch Updated for current sources.
Comment 12 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-13 15:20:44 EDT
Created attachment 305286 [details] 0002-Add-resume-switch-to-irrecord.patch
Comment 13 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 05:22:27 EDT
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Comment 14 Bastien Nocera 2008-05-22 20:28:38 EDT
Any news on those patches?
Comment 15 Jarod Wilson 2008-06-02 14:58:27 EDT
Just committed to the lirc devel branch. Would definitely like to see them get merged upstream, so please do ping Christoph. I'll chime in upstream too, if need be.
Comment 16 Bastien Nocera 2008-06-10 17:37:43 EDT
The patches aren't needed anymore, so we have all the patches we need for gnome-lirc-properties, just need the init/sysconfig changes in now.