On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 21:54:15 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> focussing on the last items of a GtkTreeView
> no longer works correctly
FYI I didn't receive the initial message reporting this bug, only the
follow-up, despite you having X-Debbugs-Cc'd me. I'm not sure why. Luckily
`bts show --mbox
On Sun, 23 May 2021 at 11:31:58 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > - Slightly shorter (`kvm -m 1G -cdrom mini.iso`, no disk layout or even
> >disk required), pick a language like French and all default choices,
> >until the mirror country selection, pick the very last one
> >(États-Unis)
On Sun, 23 May 2021 at 14:43:33 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> When the GtkTreeView is resized as a result of the text being added,
> the top left corner of the visible area is what's preserved; if its
> selected row was near the bottom, the result is that the selected row
> is no longer visible.
Simon McVittie (2021-05-23):
> > > I've tried various things like having the focus_path happens in a
> > > “_later” indirection using the same kind of logic as Simon
> > > introduced for setting the text (with a different priority), but
> > > that would happen waaay before set_text_in_idle anyway.
On 2021-05-23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian (2021-05-22):
>> This could impact debian-installer as it build-depends on it for
>> armhf/arm64, though I think the chance of regressions are minimal. Is
>> there a release candidate planned in the immediate future?
>
> Exact plans are sti
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #988951 [cdebconf-gtk-udeb] regression: focus_path on last items no longer
works properly
Added tag(s) pending.
--
988951: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=988951
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with pro
Cyril Brulebois (2021-05-23):
> And right before getting some rest, it struck me that I should be
> looking into the size-request and size-allocate signals. The latter is
> the right one and that's indeed getting me the focus where it should be!
> \o/ I suppose this isn't entirely crazy since that
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #987441 [src:debian-installer] debian-installer: D-I must get ready for
Bullseye
Added tag(s) pending.
--
987441: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987441
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #988951 [cdebconf-gtk-udeb] regression: focus_path on last items no longer
works properly
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #988951 to the same tags previously set
--
988951: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=988951
Debian Bu
Your message dated Mon, 24 May 2021 02:33:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#988951: fixed in cdebconf 0.259
has caused the Debian Bug report #988951,
regarding regression: focus_path on last items no longer works properly
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the proble
Control: tag -1 - pending
Control: block -1 by 988951
Cyril Brulebois (2021-04-25):
> Feel free to “nominate”/mention any other bug reports that seem worth
> considering. I've seen you went through a number of installation
> reports, and I'm pretty sure you have a better overview of the current
>
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 - pending
Bug #987441 [src:debian-installer] debian-installer: D-I must get ready for
Bullseye
Removed tag(s) pending.
> block -1 by 988951
Bug #987441 [src:debian-installer] debian-installer: D-I must get ready for
Bullseye
987441 was blocked by: 988786 987
cdebconf_0.259_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
cdebconf_0.259.dsc
cdebconf_0.259.tar.xz
cdebconf_0.259_source.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 04:18:08 +0200
Source: cdebconf
Architecture: source
Version: 0.259
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Changed-By: Cyril Brulebois
Closes: 988951
Changes:
Hi Frédéric,
Frédéric Bonnard (2021-04-26):
> Thanks for willing to investigate !
Thanks for the detailed steps!
> LPAR setup in PowerVM can not be reproduced to my knowledge with qemu;
> this a partitioning configuration with PHYP proprietary firmware by
> IBM. Using a ppc64el vm, I never had
Hi Étienne,
Étienne Mollier (2021-04-28):
> Cyril Brulebois, on 2021-04-28 06:08:30 +0200:
> > Let's see if this helps!
> > https://people.debian.org/~kibi/bug-987377/
>
> According to my observations, I does help with all the known bad
> cases I have hit so far; I notably double checked the "
Hi Phillip,
And thanks for debugging this… I must confess I've never touched
anything Xen related and I'd like to keep it that way in the near
future. ;-)
Phillip Susi (2021-05-19):
> The discussion upstream does not seem to be converging on a proper fix
> in the kernel, so I'm going to clone th
Hi Paul,
Paul Gevers (2021-05-20):
> On 20-05-2021 08:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
> > the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…
>
> I'm terribly sorry, but I thought we discussed migrating udeb generati
Hi kibi,
On 24-05-2021 06:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Nothing dramatic, we'll be more explicit next time and pick an option
> for real instead of considering both options and letting one pick a
> favorite. :)
Let's agree on that indeed. It's a shame that we get into these
annoyances, while all w
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #987441 [src:debian-installer] debian-installer: D-I must get ready for
Bullseye
Added tag(s) pending.
--
987441: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987441
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
20 matches
Mail list logo
