Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-08-05 Thread Frans Pop
On Saturday 29 July 2006 23:45, Joey Hess wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: > > Reason is that libcairo still depends on -24 and thus d-i builds > > currently fail as that version is no longer available. > > Also, this means that the new directfb has to migrate to testing > > before we can release d-i, whi

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-07-31 Thread Frans Pop
On Monday 31 July 2006 19:32, Guillem Jover wrote: > No problem. Anyway I'm sorry for the delay, as I left for 4 days or so > and was expecting to have net access. Also I asked for the transition > taking into account d-i, but missed the fact that libcairo was used by > it, and thought that the who

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-07-31 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi, On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:42:31 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Monday 31 July 2006 03:20, Steve Langasek wrote: > > He did request approval for this transition on debian-release earlier > > in the month, and there were no objections raised: > >

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-07-30 Thread Frans Pop
On Monday 31 July 2006 03:20, Steve Langasek wrote: > He did request approval for this transition on debian-release earlier > in the month, and there were no objections raised: > /me kicks himself for missing the implications of that m

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-07-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:01:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > I do not want to blame you or anything, but I do need your help to get > things sorted out. > You uploaded a new upstream version of directfb a few days ago (or rather, > it was accepted a few days ago), and I'm afraid that looks like

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-07-29 Thread Joey Hess
Frans Pop wrote: > Reason is that libcairo still depends on -24 and thus d-i builds currently > fail as that version is no longer available. > Also, this means that the new directfb has to migrate to testing before we > can release d-i, which in turn means that all packages that depend on > dire

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload

2006-07-29 Thread Frans Pop
On Saturday 29 July 2006 16:01, Frans Pop wrote: > You uploaded a new upstream version of directfb a few days ago (or > rather, it was accepted a few days ago), and I'm afraid that looks > likely to completely mess up the Beta 3 release plans for the > installer. The alternative is to release Beta