On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 23:20, Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
wrote:
> Reviewing ubuntu-drivers-common in the queue, I notice:
>
> + if (!match) {
> + free(match);
>
> Surely no good can come of this call to free() and it should be omitted?
>
Nice catch. I think it was just debris, but it wouldn't have caused any
problem, since match could be either a valid string or NULL, and freeing a
NULL pointer results in a no-op. I have addressed this though.
>
> The change to start before oem-config.service seems correct but has no
> associated bug linked. This looks to me like it should still go through
> the SRU verification process because it's unrelated to the other
> changes. (Also, it's not 100% obvious that the change is correct: for
> example, why does oem-config not provide display-manager.service? Why
> are there no interdependencies between oem-config's systemd units and
> display-manager.service?)
>
>
I am not sure why oem-config does not provide display-manager.service, but
this change suits our needs, which I have now filed in a separate bug
report (LP: #1789201), and referenced in the changelog.
> The source package as uploaded appears to have a lot of cruft in various
> __pycache__ directories. This ought to be cleaned up.
>
>
This should not be a problem in my last upload.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 23:20, Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
wrote:
> Reviewing ubuntu- drivers- common in the queue, I notice:
>
> + if (!match) {
> + free(match);
>
> Surely no good can come of this call to free() and it should be omitted?
>
Nice catch. I think it was just debris, but it wouldn't have caused any
problem, since match could be either a valid string or NULL, and freeing a
NULL pointer results in a no-op. I have addressed this though.
> manager. service? Why manager. service? ) manager. service, but
> The change to start before oem-config.service seems correct but has no
> associated bug linked. This looks to me like it should still go through
> the SRU verification process because it's unrelated to the other
> changes. (Also, it's not 100% obvious that the change is correct: for
> example, why does oem-config not provide display-
> are there no interdependencies between oem-config's systemd units and
> display-
>
>
I am not sure why oem-config does not provide display-
this change suits our needs, which I have now filed in a separate bug
report (LP: #1789201), and referenced in the changelog.
> The source package as uploaded appears to have a lot of cruft in various
> __pycache__ directories. This ought to be cleaned up.
>
>
This should not be a problem in my last upload.
--
Alberto Milone