IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
This solves Debian Bug report 1008760:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1008760.
Solution was inspired by this kernel bug report message:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204967#c15.
My measured pad dimensions with a ruler were 85x44mm.
But I decided to take the 2x size reported by the current kernel
when invoking the touchpad-edge-detector command from the
libdev-tools package. Because this comment claims that the old
vs new kernel reportings differ by factor 2:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204967#c3 .
Therefore I have used this command to get the new entry to 60-evdev.hwdb:
"root@pb:~# touchpad-edge-detector 80x34 /dev/input/event2
Touchpad ETPS/2 Elantech Touchpad on /dev/input/event2
Move one finger around the touchpad to detect the actual edges
Kernel says: x [0..1254], y [0..528]
Touchpad sends: x [0..2472], y [-524..528] -^C
Touchpad size as listed by the kernel: 40x17mm
User-specified touchpad size: 80x34mm
Calculated ranges: 2472/1052
Suggested udev rule:
# <Laptop model description goes here>
evdev:name:ETPS/2 Elantech Touchpad:dmi:bvnPackardBell:bvrV1.21:bd08/09/2012:br21.240:svnPackardBell:pnEasyNoteTS11HR:pvrV1.21:rvnPackardBell:rnSJV50_HR:rvrBaseBoardVersion:cvnPackardBell:ct10:cvrV1.21:*
EVDEV_ABS_00=0:2472:31
EVDEV_ABS_01=-524:528:31
EVDEV_ABS_35=0:2472:31
EVDEV_ABS_36=-524:528:31
"
This tool was "deprecated" back in 65eb4378c3,
but only by removing documentation. This is somewhat surprising, but udevadm
hwdb --update and systemd-hwdb update generate different databases. udevadm
runs in compat mode and (as far as I have been able to figure out from a quick
look), it omits filename information and does some other changes to the
datastructures. The consuming code (udev) is the same in both cases, so this
"compatibility mode" seems very strange. But I don't think it's worth trying to
figure out why things were done this way. Let's just push people towards the
new code.
Inspired by https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/25698#issuecomment-1346298094.
And drop to mention sd_id128_get_boot_app_specific() may return -ENOENT
or -ENOMEDIUM. The function does not read /etc/machine-id. But reads a
file in the procfs, which is a kind of the kernel API. Hence the
failures are caused only when the system has wrong setup.
If an attribute is read but the value is not used (i.e. ret_value is NULL),
then sd_device_get_sysattr_value() mistakenly frees the read data even though
it is cached internally.
Fixes a bug introduced by acfc2a1d15.
Fixes#25702.
So, i think "erofs" is probably the better, more modern alternative to
"squashfs". Many of the benefits don't matter too much to us I guess,
but there's one thing that stands out: erofs has a UUID in the
superblock, squashfs has not. Having an UUID in the superblock matters
if the file systems are used in an overlayfs stack, as overlayfs uses
the UUIDs to robustly and persistently reference inodes on layers in
case of metadata copy-up.
Since we probably want to allow such uses in overlayfs as emplyoed by
sysext (and the future syscfg) we probably should ramp up our erofs game
early on. Hence let's natively support erofs, test it, and in fact
mention it in the docs before squashfs even.
- Mention "/please-review" in the contributing guide
- Remove "needs-rebase" on push
- Don't add "please-review" if a green label is set
- Don't add please-review label to draft PRs
- Add please-review when a PR moves out of draft
- add missing assertions,
- use size_t for buffser size or memory index,
- handle empty input more gracefully,
- return the length or the result string,
- fix off-by-one issue when the prefix is already long enough.
When a pull request is opened/updated, add "please-review" and
remove a few other labels.
When a comment is made with /please-review on a PR. Add the
"please-review" label to the PR.
This drops the special casing for s390 and other archs, which was
cargo-culted from glibc. Given it's not obvious why it exists, and is at
best an optimization let's simply avoid it, in particular as the archs
are relatively non-mainstream.
Inspired by: #25636
Let's allow using this in code shared between userspace and EFI mode.
Also, don't implement these functions via endianness conversions given
we don't actually want to convert endianess here.
