Your message dated Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:05:18 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#822612: fixed in pyatspi 2.20.2+dfsg-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #822612,
regarding python3-pyatspi: depends on libatk-adaptor and libgail-common
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
On 01/06/16 23:34, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Wed 01 Jun 2016 23:25:51 +0200, wrote:
>> On 26/04/16 02:07, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Mon 25 Apr 2016 17:48:02 +0200, wrote:
Do you think demoting libgail-common and libatk-adaptor t
On 01/06/16 23:34, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Wed 01 Jun 2016 23:25:51 +0200, wrote:
>> On 26/04/16 02:07, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Mon 25 Apr 2016 17:48:02 +0200, wrote:
Do you think demoting libgail-common and libatk-adaptor t
Hello,
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Wed 01 Jun 2016 23:25:51 +0200, wrote:
> On 26/04/16 02:07, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Mon 25 Apr 2016 17:48:02 +0200, wrote:
> >> Do you think demoting libgail-common and libatk-adaptor to Recommends would
> >> be fine at this stage, so
On 26/04/16 02:07, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Mon 25 Apr 2016 17:48:02 +0200, wrote:
>> Do you think demoting libgail-common and libatk-adaptor to Recommends would
>> be fine at this stage, so that they are installed by default but can be
>> removed if desired (
Hello,
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, on Mon 25 Apr 2016 17:48:02 +0200, wrote:
> Do you think demoting libgail-common and libatk-adaptor to Recommends would
> be fine at this stage, so that they are installed by default but can be
> removed if desired (e.g. if/when there are no gtk2 apps installed)?
Th
Package: python3-pyatspi
Version: 2.18.0+dfsg-3
Severity: normal
Hi,
I'm trying to get rid of gtk 2 on my system, and one of the few remaining
rdeps is python3-pyatspi (and python-pyatspi). These pull libatk-bridge and
libgail-common, which depend on libgail18, which depends on libgtk
Your message dated Sun, 29 Nov 2015 17:20:34 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#757152: fixed in pyatspi 2.18.0+dfsg-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #757152,
regarding python-pyatspi: Should depond on at-spi2-core OR qt-at-spi
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 17:34 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> It is working, at least basically. the
> ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-a11y/check-a11y tool shows that both qt4
> and qt5 applications are accessible at the same time.
>
Oh! Thanks for pointing that out Samuel. Those tests are working fin
Hello,
Ritesh Raj Sarraf, on Mon 23 Nov 2015 17:11:46 +0530, wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 19:49 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Ritesh Raj Sarraf, on Sun 22 Nov 2015 21:57:12 +0530, wrote:
> > > I'm also curious to know if KDE5/Qt5 apps really support the at-spi
> > > bridge.
> >
> > Qt5 actu
I think there is a problem when both the frameworks are in use
together.
Nov 23 21:26:13 learner gnome-session[9951]: (gnome-shell:10216):
caribou-CRITICAL **: caribou_group_model_create_group_name: assertion
'group != NULL' failed
Nov 23 21:26:13 learner gnome-session[9951]: (gnome-shell:10216):
On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 19:49 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ritesh Raj Sarraf, on Sun 22 Nov 2015 21:57:12 +0530, wrote:
> > I'm also curious to know if KDE5/Qt5 apps really support the at-spi
> > bridge.
>
> Qt5 actually embeds its own at-spi bridge.
That was my impression too, but it does not s
Ritesh Raj Sarraf, on Sun 22 Nov 2015 21:57:12 +0530, wrote:
> I'm also curious to know if KDE5/Qt5 apps really support the at-spi
> bridge.
Qt5 actually embeds its own at-spi bridge.
Samuel
Package: python-pyatspi
Version: 2.18.0+dfsg-1
Followup-For: Bug #757152
I'm also curious to know if KDE5/Qt5 apps really support the at-spi
bridge.
>From what I've checked so far, it only works for the old KDE4/Qt4 apps.
Perhaps someone from the Debian KDE team could confirm tha
think moving the qt-at-spi dependency to say libqtgui4 or
> libqtcore4 (i.e. something from Qt4) looks like a better approach.
This is now done in the qt4-x11 package, so I will drop the qt-at-spi
dependency from python-pyatspi.
> You mentioned kedit as an example where you want to have qt
Am 13.10.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Samuel Thibault:
> Well, let's have a look at solution, but to me this is really religious
> haircutting, and will most probably hurt people who need it.
As said, I think moving the qt-at-spi dependency to say libqtgui4 or
libqtcore4 (i.e. something from Qt4) looks l
Michael Biebl, le Tue 13 Oct 2015 14:24:22 +0200, a écrit :
> this needs to be fixed. Otherwise I'll have to consider dropping
> gnome-orca from the default GNOME installation.
>
> Pulling in unused KDE and Qt libraries is not desirable on a default
> GNOME installation.
Is pulling a handful of M
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 757152 -1
Bug #757152 [python-pyatspi] python-pyatspi: Should depond on at-spi2-core OR
qt-at-spi
Bug 757152 cloned as bug 801679
> reassign -1 python3-pyatspi
Bug #801679 [python-pyatspi] python-pyatspi: Should depond on at-spi2-c
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 21:11:31 +0200 Matijs van Zuijlen
wrote:
> Package: python-pyatspi
> Version: 2.10.0+dfsg-2
> Severity: normal
>
> This latest version of the python-pyatspi package depends on both
> at-spi2-core and qt-at-spi, which each depend on part of gnome and kde,
Aha, looks like I've found the culprit responsible for Cinnamon indirectly
depending on Qt libs :-/
$ aptitude why libqtgui4
i cinnamon Depends caribou
i A caribouDepends python-pyatspi
i A python-pyatspi Depends qt-at-spi
i A qt-a
tc.". So this is mostly a no-go.
> Personally I can't imagine any way in which it could actually be used
> without having any qt applications to launch.
Sure, but python-pyatspi can't know whether there are some qt
applications or not.
> However, when an average user installs sa
Hello,
Aren't there other options considerable - like, making qt-at-spi package
itself not depend on qt4 libs? Personally I can't imagine any way in
which it could actually be used without having any qt applications to
launch. However, when an average user installs said software, these libs
would
e python-pyatspi is about having
screen reading support through at-spi2, which is completely independent
from the actual desktop being used.
> and then there's gnome-core for gnome.
I don't see the relation with the issue being discussed.
Gnome has a gnome-accessibility package, which
Package: python-pyatspi
Version: 2.10.0+dfsg-1
Followup-For: Bug #757152
There's already a package named kdeaccessibility, and then there's gnome-core
for gnome. Wouldn't it make sense for those packages to actually decide which
of the two is actually used within a given syste
Hello,
Matijs van Zuijlen, le Tue 05 Aug 2014 21:11:31 +0200, a écrit :
> This latest version of the python-pyatspi package depends on both
> at-spi2-core and qt-at-spi,
Yes, this is on purpose.
> In the common case, only one of these desktops is installed and it
> makes no sens
Package: python-pyatspi
Version: 2.10.0+dfsg-2
Severity: normal
This latest version of the python-pyatspi package depends on both
at-spi2-core and qt-at-spi, which each depend on part of gnome and kde,
respectively. In the common case, only one of these desktops is
installed and it makes no sense
Your message dated Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:33:37 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#711953: fixed in pyatspi 2.9.3+dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #711953,
regarding pyatspi: FTBFS: cannot stat `debian/tmp/usr/lib/python3': No such
file or directory
to be marked as done.
This
Source: pyatspi
Version: 2.9.2+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
pyatspi FTBFS:
| checking whether /usr/bin/python3.2 version is >= 2.6... yes
| checking for /usr/bin/python3.2 version... 3.2
| checking for /usr/bin/python3.2 platform... linux2
| checking
Your message dated Thu, 09 May 2013 23:33:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#707312: fixed in pyatspi 2.8.0+dfsg-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #707312,
regarding pyatspi: FTBFS: checking whether /usr/bin/python3.3 version >= 2.6...
too old
to be marked as done.
This means t
Source: pyatspi
Version: 2.5.3+dfsg-3
Severity: serious
Tags: sid jessie
User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: python3.3
pyatspi FTBFS:
| for pyver in 2.7 3.2 3.3; do \
| mkdir -p /build/pyatspi-pHTjIX/pyatspi-2.5.3+dfsg/build-$pyver; \
| cd /build/pyatspi-pHTjIX
Your message dated Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:02:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#699709: fixed in pyatspi 2.7.2+dfsg-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #699709,
regarding python3-pyatspi2: fails to upgrade from 'sid' - trying to overwrite
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pyatspi/u
Control: tags 699709 + pending
Andreas Beckmann, le Sun 03 Feb 2013 23:01:53 +0100, a écrit :
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from
> 'sid' to 'experimental'.
Right, I forgot to port the wheezy fix for that issue to experimental.
This should now be uploaded.
Processing control commands:
> tags 699709 + pending
Bug #699709 [python3-pyatspi2] python3-pyatspi2: fails to upgrade from 'sid' -
trying to overwrite /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pyatspi/utils.py
Added tag(s) pending.
--
699709: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.c
eplace python3-pyatspi2 2.5.3+dfsg-3 (using
.../python3-pyatspi2_2.7.2+dfsg-1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement python3-pyatspi2 ...
dpkg: error processing
/var/cache/apt/archives/python3-pyatspi2_2.7.2+dfsg-1_all.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite '/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pyat
t; > It installed fine in 'testing', then the upgrade to 'sid' fails
> > because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
> > Breaks/Replaces relation.
> >
> > Unpacking python3-pyatspi (from
> > .../python3-pyatspi_2.5.3+
Your message dated Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:47:49 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#693490: fixed in pyatspi 2.5.3+dfsg-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #693490,
regarding python3-pyatspi: fails to upgrade from 'testing' - trying to
overwrite /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pyats
cause it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
> Breaks/Replaces relation.
>
> Unpacking python3-pyatspi (from .../python3-pyatspi_2.5.3+dfsg-2.1_all.deb)
> ...
> dpkg: error processing
> /var/cache/apt/archives/python3-pyatspi_2.5.3+dfsg-2.1_all.deb
Processing control commands:
> tags 693490 + pending
Bug #693490 [python3-pyatspi] python3-pyatspi: fails to upgrade from 'testing'
- trying to overwrite /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pyatspi/enum.py
Added tag(s) pending.
--
693490: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.c
Package: python3-pyatspi
Version: 2.5.3+dfsg-2.1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Control: affects -1 + python3-pyatspi2
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from
'testing'.
It installed fine in 'testing
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + python3-pyatspi2
Bug #693490 [python3-pyatspi] python3-pyatspi: fails to upgrade from 'testing'
- trying to overwrite /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pyatspi/enum.py
Added indication that 693490 affects python3-pyatspi2
--
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock pyatspi for a switch from conflicts/replaces/provides to
a transitional package that APT handles much better.
pyatspi (2.5.3+dfsg-2.1) unstable; urgency=low
* Non
Your message dated Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:00:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#691160: fixed in pyatspi 2.5.3+dfsg-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #691160,
regarding broken upgrade path from python-pyatspi to python-pyatspi2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Josselin Mouette, le Fri 09 Nov 2012 11:37:25 +0100, a écrit :
> Le vendredi 09 novembre 2012 à 01:44 +0100, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette, le Thu 01 Nov 2012 16:34:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > > B:
> > > 1. Remove python-pyatspi from the at-spi so
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2012 à 01:44 +0100, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette, le Thu 01 Nov 2012 16:34:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > B:
> > 1. Remove python-pyatspi from the at-spi source package.
> > 2. Rename python-pyatspi2 to python-pyatspi.
> >
Josselin Mouette, le Wed 07 Nov 2012 17:05:29 +0100, a écrit :
> Can someone pick the pyatspi2 part, or should I just pick an option and
> NMU pyatspi2?
I won't have much free time during the coming week to be able to do the
pyatspi2 part. I guess the simplest way is that you NMU.
Samuel
--
T
Josselin Mouette, le Thu 01 Nov 2012 16:34:17 +0100, a écrit :
> B:
> 1. Remove python-pyatspi from the at-spi source package.
> 2. Rename python-pyatspi2 to python-pyatspi.
> 3. Make python-pyatspi2 an empty package depending on
> python-pyatspi.
I&#
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 691160 serious
Bug #691160 [python-pyatspi2] upgrade-reports: dist-upgrade to sid fails after
manual mod of sources.list to sid
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
> retitle 691160 broken upgrade p
severity 691160 serious
retitle 691160 broken upgrade path from python-pyatspi to python-pyatspi2
thanks
I can provide a broken upgrade log is somebody is curious about this.
Ana
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-accessibility-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 16:34:17 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Release team: would you accept such a change for wheezy?
>
We accept RC bug fixes, yes...
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
Le jeudi 01 novembre 2012 à 16:34 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> as mentioned in #691160, in some cases APT fails to provide a clean
> upgrade path from python-pyatspi to python-pyatspi2.
>
> Since both packages are binary-compatible, the python-pyatspi
Hi all,
as mentioned in #691160, in some cases APT fails to provide a clean
upgrade path from python-pyatspi to python-pyatspi2.
Since both packages are binary-compatible, the python-pyatspi2 package
should never have existed in the first place, but it’s a bit late for
that. I think the easiest
w.
>
> So I propose something:
> - Could someone tell me what packages shuld be updated?
It's about updating pyatspi and at-spi2-core to 2.2.x
> - I would update the packages on experimental. Thus, even sid users will
> be able to work using experimental packages, without needing p
Hi again,
>
> The existing at-spi 2.0 packages need to be updated to version 2.2.3.
> The following is the link to the announcement.
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-announce-list/2011-November/msg00019.html
Please explain to me to enable me to understand fine: at-spi 2.0, on Debian, is
o
Hi.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 08:31:45PM +0100, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> It seems that Mario is very busy and cannot answer. I would like to
> help, however everybody knows that my technical skills are limited, so I
> can't take a decision and test beyond the user point of view.
>
Hi,
If I understood everything (note that Debian gnome team was in Cc om my
mail), gnome team doesn't want to replace Mario on atspi, as they don't
know the applications and they prefer waiting for his analysis. That's
why I think we should try experimental before thinking of sid, hoping
he'll be
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> - I would update the packages on experimental. Thus, even sid users will
> be able to work using experimental packages, without needing push to
> sid.
Perhaps it would be better just to ask the Debian Gnome maintainers if they
can do an NMU of the packages directl
est regards,
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
Le vendredi 16 décembre 2011 à 16:07 +0100, Michael Biebl a écrit :
> On 15.12.2011 23:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Hi Mario, hi Samuel,
> >
> > to unblock the situation regarding GNOME 3.2, I wanted to let you know
> > that I
On 15.12.2011 23:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi Mario, hi Samuel,
>
> to unblock the situation regarding GNOME 3.2, I wanted to let you know
> that I'm planning to NMU pyatspi tomorrow and upload the current version
> 2.0.2 to unstable via DELAYED/5.
I've done the NMU a
Hi Mario, hi Samuel,
to unblock the situation regarding GNOME 3.2, I wanted to let you know
that I'm planning to NMU pyatspi tomorrow and upload the current version
2.0.2 to unstable via DELAYED/5. This will allow us to also update
gnome-shell and orca to 3.2.
We'd still appreci
Jan and Bertil Smark Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I try to install python-pyatspi typing apt-get install
> python-pyatspi, I get the following message:
>
> INFO: using old version '/usr/bin/python2.3'
> Compiling /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/py
>>>>> "JaBSN" == Jan and Bertil Smark Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JaBSN> Compiling /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyatspi/constants.py ...
JaBSN> File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyatspi/constants.py", line
195
JaBSN&
Greetings,
When I try to install python-pyatspi typing apt-get install
python-pyatspi, I get the following message:
INFO: using old version '/usr/bin/python2.3'
Compiling /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyatspi/constants.py ...
File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pyats
62 matches
Mail list logo
