Frans Pop (25/03/2010):
> ! (5)
> ! Make the necessary changes to the D-I build system and re-enable
> ! the build targets for the graphical installer.
>
> Done. G-I images should start appearing in the next daily builds.
Yep, I saw your commits through #-boot, thanks.
> Note that it is unneces
On Wednesday 17 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Proposed plan:
> ==
> (1)
> In order to get everyone ready, I'd suggest (kindly) asking pkg-gnome
> folks to upload their 2.28 packages to unstable; [...]
>
> (2)
> Once that done, I'll rebuild the following d-i packages against them:
On Wednesday 17 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Frans Pop (17/03/2010):
> > I've no idea if/how this is possible, but it would be great if you
> > could look into it.
>
> Being a standard human being with 24 hours per day, I'm going to say
> ‘no’ this time, sorry.
Fair enough :-)
--
To UNS
On Friday 19 March 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > How about merging the cdebconf{,-entropy,-terminal} and rootskel-gtk
> > patches, uploading those packages, while I'm uploading a new revision
> > of xorg-server disabling the udeb for sparc?
>
> I'll ta
On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hey but we don't have g-i now so it won't be buildable but current
> images are going to keep working. So no problem in moving them. Right?
Can you be 100% sure with these changes that the newt versions are not
going to break? I guess they shouldn
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
> Hello Frans,
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Frans Pop wrote:
>> On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> I must be missing something but all affected modules look as safe to
>>> move to testing since they're in i
Hello Frans,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> I must be missing something but all affected modules look as safe to
>> move to testing since they're in initrd. Am I wrong?
>
> Yes.
> * cdebconf-entropy
> * cdebconf-terminal
On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I must be missing something but all affected modules look as safe to
> move to testing since they're in initrd. Am I wrong?
Yes.
* cdebconf-entropy
* cdebconf-terminal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a sub
Hello Frans,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Frans Pop wrote:
>> If there are no surprises from a buildd point of view, we should be able
>> to ask for a push to testing in a few days.
>
> For the non-D-I parts that is fine, but the D-I parts can only be pushed
> with the next D-I release.
I mu
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I'm not sure whether it's feasible to push everything up to the
> “libvte9-udeb, libgtk2.0-0-udeb, libpango1.0-udeb, gtk2-engines-udeb”
> layer, that would break cdebconf-gtk-{entropy,terminal,udeb}?
That's not a problem as those udebs are currentl
Frans Pop (19/03/2010):
> For the non-D-I parts that is fine, but the D-I parts can only be
> pushed with the next D-I release.
I'm not sure whether it's feasible to push everything up to the
“libvte9-udeb, libgtk2.0-0-udeb, libpango1.0-udeb, gtk2-engines-udeb”
layer, that would break cdebconf-gt
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> How about merging the cdebconf{,-entropy,-terminal} and rootskel-gtk
> patches, uploading those packages, while I'm uploading a new revision
> of xorg-server disabling the udeb for sparc?
I'll take a look at that within the next couple of days. Don
Hi,
Cyril Brulebois (17/03/2010):
> Current situation:
> ==
> * udev is ready in unstable.
> * X11 packages (server, drivers, libraries) are ready in unstable.
xorg-server (source for xserver-xorg-core-udeb) doesn't build on sparc
due to a relocation issue during the static lin
Josselin Mouette (17/03/2010):
> Emilio fixed this faster than the speed of light.
Yep, thanks.
> You mean backporting the 2.30 patches to 2.28 packages?
It could be better phrased “merge the patches in the package versions
they were diffed against”. But that's the idea.
> I guess there’s no h
Frans Pop (17/03/2010):
> I've no idea if/how this is possible, but it would be great if you
> could look into it.
Being a standard human being with 24 hours per day, I'm going to say
‘no’ this time, sorry.
> > (I'm going to file bugs against them in a few minutes anyway.)
Oops, looks like I hi
Le mercredi 17 mars 2010 à 02:38 +0100, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> Right now, I spotted a few issues:
> * Missing version bump in Build-Depends, resulting in a dependency of
>libpango1.0-udeb → libcairo-directfb2-udeb. Should be trivial to
>fix.
Emilio fixed this faster than the speed of
On Wednesday 17 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Once that done, I'll rebuild the following d-i packages against them:
> * cdebconf
> * cdebconf-entropy
> * cdebconf-terminal
> * rootskel-gtk
I've just had a look at how the help dialogs look now, and they are much
better. But they are now
Hi,
during the past days, I've been busy getting my changes merged into
Debian packages, getting them uploaded, and getting them through
NEW. Besides the X11-related packages I took care of, I should list
udev, cairo, pango1.0, gtk+2.0, vte, and gtk2-engines.
Their respective maintainers were ver
18 matches
Mail list logo
