Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 152165
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Serge Gavrilov <serge@pdmi.ras.ru>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 152165 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 152165 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2006-10-20 14:02 0000 
gnome-power-manager needs pam_console support to allow user suspend and
hibernate 
the system (see configs in /etc/dbus-1/system.d/).

Current ebuild contains no info and no support concerning this issue.

------- Comment #1 From Daniel Gryniewicz 2006-10-20 14:20:44 0000 ------- 
So does g-v-m.  Workaround is to touch /var/run/console/$USER

I've added an info print to the ebuild.

------- Comment #2 From Stefano Varesi 2006-11-02 02:37:44 0000 ------- 
The message added in pkg_postinst() is inexact:
* installing the masked sys-auth/pam_console is needed only if
>=sys-libs/pam-0.99 is installed, that for now is masked. Instead, if
sys-libs/pam-0.78 is installed, it must be compiled with the USE "pam_console"
enabled and this is the case of most users.
* Touching /var/run/console/<username> is useful only if pam_console is _NOT_
installed/enabled and it must be done after each boot.

------- Comment #3 From John N. Laliberte (RETIRED) 2006-11-02 13:24:15 0000 ------- 
@Stefano:  can you open a new bug for that?  the einfo recently changed.

------- Comment #4 From Stefano Varesi 2006-11-03 09:33:18 0000 ------- 
Is it really necessary to open a new bug? Why not reopening this? This is
marked as RESOLVED, but it has been resolved nothing.
If you want I will open a new bug, but I think it's better to continue on this.
Isn't it?

------- Comment #5 From Daniel Gryniewicz 2006-11-03 10:15:38 0000 ------- 
What's wrong with the current info (except for s/and/or/ which I've already
done)? As far as I can tell, all your comments are addressed...
Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug