On 01/07/11 20:19, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 08:02:55PM +0100, Andrew Ross wrote:
>> Actually I'm going to incorporate the Ubuntu patch to azureus to use
>> webkit rather than xulrunner, since that will make it much easier to fix
>> #631048. It should be updated in git shortly.
On 01/07/11 19:42, Andrew Ross wrote:
> On 29/06/11 06:13, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:51:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
>>> I don't have a feel for how much the API might change between releases, but
>>> libswt-gtk-3-java seems reasonable. Shall we change it for this uploa
On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 08:02:55PM +0100, Andrew Ross wrote:
> Actually I'm going to incorporate the Ubuntu patch to azureus to use
> webkit rather than xulrunner, since that will make it much easier to fix
> #631048. It should be updated in git shortly.
---end quoted text---
I think the better a
On 29/06/11 06:13, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:51:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
>> I don't have a feel for how much the API might change between releases, but
>> libswt-gtk-3-java seems reasonable. Shall we change it for this upload or go
>> ahead and introduce 3.7 to the a
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:51:27PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> I don't have a feel for how much the API might change between releases, but
> libswt-gtk-3-java seems reasonable. Shall we change it for this upload or go
> ahead and introduce 3.7 to the archive?
---end quoted text---
I have chang
On 06/27/2011 01:18 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> On 27/06/11 08:55, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
>>
>> On the mention of transition, do you know why didn't swt-gtk 3.6 manage
>> to get into testing, although all packages depending on it did migrate
>> to 3.6 ? Note: currently you'll find a "serious" bug agai
On 27/06/11 08:55, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
>
> On the mention of transition, do you know why didn't swt-gtk 3.6 manage
> to get into testing, although all packages depending on it did migrate
> to 3.6 ? Note: currently you'll find a "serious" bug against swt-gtk,
> but that was just filed 9 days a
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 08:44:23PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> we needn't manage a larger transition.
On the mention of transition, do you know why didn't swt-gtk 3.6 manage
to get into testing, although all packages depending on it did migrate
to 3.6 ? Note: currently you'll find a "serious" b
Thanks for checking on the rdepends of the swt-gtk packages. I was rather
expecting there to be more of them. It's nice that it's just these 3 and that
we needn't manage a larger transition. I'll sponsor the update to swt-gtk and
it's rdepends.
Thanks,
tony
On 06/26/2011 01:58 PM, Andrew Ross
9 matches
Mail list logo
