Re: gtk frontend status report

2003-02-06 Thread Michael Cardenas
I'm very sorry to respond so late. I've been busy trying to stop the war. I'll take a look at your udebs soon. I think we have all we need now. Please take a look at the posting I made on debian-boot yesterday titled "a graphical frontend for debian-installer" for some new requirements for these

Re: gtk frontend status report

2003-01-15 Thread Shiju p. Nair
Hi Michael, Am sorry for delay in replying. Yes, I have created atk udeb. You can found related files here : http://madhu.homelinux.org/debian/atk This single udeb contains the shared libraries and the common files which the runtime libraries need (this is two seperate package in debian archi

Re: gtk frontend status report

2003-01-01 Thread Sebastian Ley
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This should be done with a new directfb package, with a completely > different soname, and pkglibdir (or whereever directfb stores its > plugins) Ok, let me see if I got that right: 1) We want the installer to be as versatile as possible. That means,

Re: gtk frontend status report

2003-01-01 Thread Junichi Uekawa
> We still need to have an eye on the space that is occupied on the > ramdisk. The udebs do not contain any unneeded modules or > documentation and in some cases they use other compile options then > their deb counterparts. They should not be "deb/udeb counterparts" that are binary-incompatible.

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Junichi Uekawa
> We still need to have an eye on the space that is occupied on the > ramdisk. The udebs do not contain any unneeded modules or > documentation and in some cases they use other compile options then > their deb counterparts. A good example is directfb: They should change their sonames, at least th

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Sebastian Ley
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, there is no way that they will fit on the floppy image. I > > tried to make pic files for all of them and reduce them by mklibs > > simultanously but that did not work out. > > What does not work out in what way ? As long as there are pic files f

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Michael Cardenas
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Martin Sj?gren wrote: > tis 2002-12-31 klockan 15.13 skrev Junichi Uekawa: > > > Since anna only handles udebs and the initial ramdisk is limited there > > > is a need to package the prerequisite libraries into udebs. > > > > I would personally rather have

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Martin Sjögren
tis 2002-12-31 klockan 15.13 skrev Junichi Uekawa: > > Since anna only handles udebs and the initial ramdisk is limited there > > is a need to package the prerequisite libraries into udebs. > > I would personally rather have anna only bootstrap enough so that > apt works, than trying to have pack

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Junichi Uekawa
> > We are probably not going to have a floppy image from them (which > > will involve having PIC packages for each library package, which is > > a big burden) and if we are not going to need to fit on a floppy, > > what is the point of making a udeb for ? > > No, there is no way that they will fi

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Martin Sjögren
tis 2002-12-31 klockan 12.22 skrev Sebastian Ley: > But there is still need for the udebs. I am basically thinking of two > scenarios: > > 1) Net Install: After finishing setting up your network, the libraries > are pulled in by anna and the frontend can be changed. > > 2) CD Install: The Disk Im

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-31 Thread Sebastian Ley
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've finally managed to build, but not test, udebs for glib, > > pango, and gtk+-directfb. > We are probably not going to have a floppy image from them (which > will involve having PIC packages for each library package, which is > a big burden) and if

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-30 Thread Junichi Uekawa
> I've finally managed to build, but not test, udebs for glib, pango, > and gtk+-directfb. I'm having doubts on whether we really need udebs for them. I want some clarification on this point. We are probably not going to have a floppy image from them (which will involve having PIC packages for

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-30 Thread Shiju p. Nair
+++ Michael Cardenas [29/12/02 03:05 -0800]: * I've finally managed to build, but not test, udebs for glib, pango, * and gtk+-directfb. * * After building 3 udebs, I finally have an idea of how it should be * done, I think. * * I've uploaded all of them to: * * people.debian.org/~mbc/udebs *

Re: gtk frontend status report

2002-12-29 Thread Sebastian Ley
Michael Cardenas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our general plan at this point is that the user will begin the > install in text mode and then have the option to select another > frontend (the frontend chooser isn't even begun yet, I don't > think). Once it is chosen, the necessary udebs will be dow

gtk frontend status report

2002-12-29 Thread Michael Cardenas
I've finally managed to build, but not test, udebs for glib, pango, and gtk+-directfb. After building 3 udebs, I finally have an idea of how it should be done, I think. I've uploaded all of them to: people.debian.org/~mbc/udebs These still need a lot of work, and they need to be combined wit