Control: tags 984339 + patch Control: tags 984339 + pending Dear maintainer,
To resolve the sitatuation, I've prepared an NMU for slim (versioned as 1.3.6-5.3), upload to DELAYED/2 will follow shortly. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. Regards. diff -Nru slim-1.3.6/debian/changelog slim-1.3.6/debian/changelog --- slim-1.3.6/debian/changelog 2020-09-25 13:22:22.000000000 +0200 +++ slim-1.3.6/debian/changelog 2022-01-04 01:43:19.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +slim (1.3.6-5.3) unstable; urgency=high + + * Non-maintainer upload + * Fix build error with gcc 11. Closes: #984339 + + -- Christoph Biedl <debian.a...@manchmal.in-ulm.de> Tue, 04 Jan 2022 07:02:51 +0100 + slim (1.3.6-5.2) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. diff -Nru slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/series slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/series --- slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/series 2017-05-02 15:42:52.000000000 +0200 +++ slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/series 2022-01-04 00:58:36.000000000 +0100 @@ -6,3 +6,4 @@ fix-systemd-service.patch manpage-formatting-fixes.patch fix-missing-plymouth-handling.patch +slim-1.3.6-gcc11.patch diff -Nru slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/slim-1.3.6-gcc11.patch slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/slim-1.3.6-gcc11.patch --- slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/slim-1.3.6-gcc11.patch 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 +++ slim-1.3.6/debian/patches/slim-1.3.6-gcc11.patch 2022-01-04 01:42:15.000000000 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Subject: Fix build with GCC 11 +Author: Martin Väth +Date: 2021-05-03 +Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/984339 +Bug-Gentoo: https://bugs.gentoo.org/786498 + + From the Gentoo bug ticket: + + Comment to the patch, since it might look wrong at a first glance: + + All documentation about the return value of XCreateGC I found states + that it returns a proper pointer and in the error case sets some + failure stat. In particular, I found no documentation that it + returns a "negative" pointer. + + The cleanest patch would probably be to check the failure stat, but + since I am not sure about it, the most reasonable analogous check to + the original code is to check whether we get a null pointer + returned. (Very likely, neither the original code nor the patch work + properly in the error case, but at least the patch fixes the + compilation issue and causes no regression in the non-error case.) + +--- a/panel.cpp ++++ b/panel.cpp +@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ + gcm = GCGraphicsExposures; + gcv.graphics_exposures = False; + WinGC = XCreateGC(Dpy, Win, gcm, &gcv); +- if (WinGC < 0) { ++ if (WinGC == 0) { + cerr << APPNAME + << ": failed to create pixmap\n."; + exit(ERR_EXIT);
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
