Bug 295206

Summary:	gome-base/gdm-2.28.1-r1 does not depend on hal
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Florian Scandella <flo>
Component:	[OLD] GNOME	Assignee:	Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED
Severity:	minor	CC:	nicolasbock
Priority:	High
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593787
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	288249
Attachments:	Remove remaining Hal-bits from gdm-2.28

Description Florian Scandella 2009-11-30 16:10:32 UTC

the ebuild has hal[consolekit] in DEPEND if consolekit is enabled, but does actually not depend on it.
i removed the line and build gdm without hal installed, i noticed no differences.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2009-12-01 00:06:21 UTC

that is not a valid test nor argument.

Comment 2 Florian Scandella 2009-12-01 00:37:27 UTC

what do you mean? if it compiles without hal, it means autoconf is not checking for it.
just found this ubuntu bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdm/+bug/418981

Comment 3 Florian Scandella 2009-12-07 23:15:00 UTC

added info ...

Comment 4 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev

2009-12-09 20:34:32 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> what do you mean? if it compiles without hal, it means autoconf is not checking
> for it.
> just found this ubuntu bug report:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdm/+bug/418981
> 

But, as I can read in ebuild, hal is in RDEPEND, not in DEPEND, then, it can build without it but maybe some feature is damaged

Comment 5 Arun Raghavan (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2010-02-09 09:42:51 UTC

From what I can see, all the code that actually uses hal is commented out. Found an upstream bug that cleans up the remaining hal-related code from gdm master: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593787

We should be good with just removing the dep (though that will probably trigger "could not connect to hal" warnings). Best to backport the patch. Will try to get to this if nobody beats me to it.

Comment 6 Xake 2010-02-18 17:09:27 UTC

Created attachment 220185 [details, diff]
Remove remaining Hal-bits from gdm-2.28

(In reply to comment #5)
> We should be good with just removing the dep (though that will probably trigger
> "could not connect to hal" warnings). Best to backport the patch. Will try to
> get to this if nobody beats me to it.
> 

Is this patch close enough?

Comment 7 Nirbheek Chauhan (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2010-03-07 14:39:36 UTC

I've added a similar path to portage with 2.28.2-r1, thanks for reporting

Comment 8 Xake 2010-03-07 15:26:59 UTC

(In reply to comment #7)
> I've added a similar path to portage with 2.28.2-r1, thanks for reporting
> 

I like your take on using rm.:-)
Thanks for fixing!