On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> And any follow-up discussion how jcristeau is not adhering to Debian
> Policy, the 10 Commandments or the Brigitte Diet Plan are **pointless**.
It is not a follow-up discussion.
If I had to choose only one patch, I'd drop the xorg-server f
> I fixed the actual bug. Andreas too, just differently.
> (Unsure which one is better. Either will work.)
Fixing the bug in your personal repository is not fixing the bug. It still
fails to build. And any follow-up discussion how jcristeau is not adhering to
Debian Policy, the 10 Commandments
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> dpo is not Debian, although it's general policy (not Policy though) to
> support it best-effort. As such, DevRef is silent on it AFAIK.
I'm surprised. I would have expected that there would be some policy
relating to downstream distros (like Ubuntu
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>Gosh, I hate these kind of discussions!
Then don’t read them.
>The time and efforts you already spent on this probably even surpass
>the ressources required to fix the actual bug.
I fixed the actual bug. Andreas too, just differently.
(Unsure which one is bette
Gosh, I hate these kind of discussions!
The time and efforts you already spent on this probably even surpass the
ressources required to fix the actual bug.
Let.us.just.fix.the.code. Dang!
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Finn Thain dixit:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Thorst
Finn Thain dixit:
>On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> > > > > > > [package maintainers] don't care about dpo
>> [...]
>> Multiply this by the amount of packages I deal with, because almost no
>> two use the same bugtracker.
>> [...]
>> DevRef clearly says that this *is* the package main
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > > > > > > [package maintainers] don't care about dpo
> [...]
> Multiply this by the amount of packages I deal with, because almost no
> two use the same bugtracker.
> [...]
> DevRef clearly says that this *is* the package maintainer's job.
That mak
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>On 02/03/2016 09:42 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Yes. I have to localise which upstream it is, which bugtracker
>> they have, fight that bugtracker software’s crappy webinterface,
>> register, wait until their mail times out due to greylisting and
>> them using a
On 02/03/2016 09:42 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Yes. I have to localise which upstream it is, which bugtracker
> they have, fight that bugtracker software’s crappy webinterface,
> register, wait until their mail times out due to greylisting and
> them using an idiotic mail provider, try to registe
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>Because it takes too much effort to report such a bug in the
Yes. I have to localise which upstream it is, which bugtracker
they have, fight that bugtracker software’s crappy webinterface,
register, wait until their mail times out due to greylisting and
them usin
On 02/03/2016 09:23 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> why not just upstream your patch?
>
> Upstream, for me, is Debian.
Which basically explains why this bug hasn't been fixed yet. Great!
Because it takes too much effort to report such a bug in the
freedesktop.org bug tracker?
--
.''`. John Pau
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>why not just upstream your patch?
Upstream, for me, is Debian.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Stéphane, I actually don’t block Googlemail, they’re just too utterly
stupid to successfully deliver to me (or anyone else using Greylisting
and not whitelisting their ranges). S
On 02/03/2016 09:10 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> * [740]#729337 [m| | ] [[741]src:xorg-server] [742]xorg-server: FTBFS:
> preprocessor macro R_SP
>conflict with glibc headers
>Reported by: [743]Thorsten Glaser ; Date: Mon, 11
> Nov 2013 23:00:0
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit:
>Has anyone looked at this issue already?
/me “bts src:xorg-server”
/me /FTBFS
/me finds:
* [740]#729337 [m| | ] [[741]src:xorg-server] [742]xorg-server: FTBFS:
preprocessor macro R_SP
conflict with glibc headers
Reported by: [
Hi!
xorg-server has been failing to build on m68k for a very long time now,
apparently because we can't build the embedded x86 emulator on m68k [1]:
In file included from ../../../../hw/xfree86/int10/../x86emu/x86emu.h:54:0,
from ../../../../hw/xfree86/int10/xf86x86emu.c:10:
../.
Source: xorg-server
Version: 2:1.14.99.3-1
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
Hi,
trying to build xorg-server from experimental because it includes
a patch to support the Atari planes for the fbdev module, upstream.
Note that the ve
16 matches
Mail list logo
