On Monday 03 July 2006 11:51, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 30 juin 2006 à 19:21 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > > In the next days, the stable 1.2 branch of libcairo should be > > released. > > This has just happened. It has been uploaded to unstable today.
Hmm. I'm not totally happy that this happened without coordinating it first. Luckily it will not break the current graphical installer (as the udeb was named differently by Dave that the current "hacked" one). > > Sometime during summer, GTK+ 2.10 should be released, with integrated > > DirectFB support. > > This has also happened. At one point you feel like you're waiting endlessly for these releases to happen, and then you get rushed by them ;-) > As we want to be able to upload GTK+ 2.10 to unstable as soon as > possible, we'd like to move the current experimental 2.8 packages to > unstable. > > Could you tell us what is exactly needed for that without breaking d-i? > Do we need versioned conflicts with some packages? The gtk2.0+directfb packages _do_ have the same names as existing packages, so for that a coordinated upload is necessary. AFAIK versioned conflicts are of no use for d-i. We just have to make sure that udebs that depend on the cairo and gtk libs are rebuilt ASAP after the new libs hit unstable. We also have to ask FTP masters for removal of the hacked source packages and their binaries, but that can wait until after the rebuild. I had just come to the decision to delay this until _after_ the d-i Beta3 release, mainly because when I tested the image Davide created last week, I noticed some problems for which I've just sent a mail [1]. I'd like to await reactions from Davide and Attilio before making a decision. Can you give me till the end of the week? Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/07/msg00089.html
pgpyRLzXaizva.pgp
Description: PGP signature
