On 19/03/10 15:32, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> (I failed to include pkg-gnome in my first mail, I've bounced it
> anyway; adding them for real now. Adding pkg-sdl as well.)
>
> Frans Pop (19/03/2010):
>>> | libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb
>>
>> This package should be dropped now. Hasn't that been done ye
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 15:23:43 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > | libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb
>
> This package should be dropped now. Hasn't that been done yet? I'd consider
> migrating gtk+2.0 without dropping that package first an RC bug.
>
It's been removed afaict.
libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb |
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Would it seem acceptable to force the current package as is, and then fix
> this right afterward?
[...]
> Since I really would like to get stuff migrated ASAP (I would hate
> blocking anyone), I think we should go for either breaking or dropping
>
(I failed to include pkg-gnome in my first mail, I've bounced it
anyway; adding them for real now. Adding pkg-sdl as well.)
Frans Pop (19/03/2010):
> > | libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb
>
> This package should be dropped now. Hasn't that been done yet? I'd
> consider migrating gtk+2.0 without droppin
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> The following packages should be the ones broken by this push:
>
> ,---[ Packages in sid still depending on *directfb* udebs ]---
> | cdebconf-gtk-entropy
> | cdebconf-gtk-terminal
> | cdebconf-gtk-udeb
These will be broken, as expected.
> | libdi
Hi,
here is the current status (as far as I understood it from a quick
talk on #debian-gnome as well as from a recent thread on -boot@) for
X11-based d-i images.
Step 1:
---
We push everything needed for X & Gnome. That means we don't push the
modified udebs maintained by d-i, so that we don'
6 matches
Mail list logo
