On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:07:46PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Sorry, I've really just not had any time recently, and there are some
> things I wanted to clean up before I fired off to you (e.g. the
> Build-Dep on glut, which introduced horrible Build-Deps and other
> hilarity which meant tha
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:35:55PM -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Is this an attempt to smooth the transition from the xorg
> > > packages to the mesa ones and in the course of the X
> > > modularisation to get completely rid of the GL/GLU code in xorg
> > > (and the libgl*-xorg package
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 17:25 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:41:05AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> The GLU package is, uhm, I don't know. At some point I talked with
> Branden about it, but we never did anything. The xfree86 (and now the
> x.org) are the ones d
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 17:25 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Daniel also said he'd send a package via email which I never got, so I
> went ahead and did my own thing. (No Matt, I'm not happy with the idea
> of fishing patches out of some random, cluttered, and very unusable
> webpage; every
Thanks for your answers, Marcelo.
> > I noticed that Ubuntu renamed mesag3->libglu1-mesa and
> > xlibmesa-gl->libgl1-xorg.
>
> Hopefully libglu1-mesa is a typo on your side. The driver provided by
> mesag3 is a software rasterizer and the package *should* be named
> something like libgl1-me
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:41:05AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> It seems that mesa (6.3.2) as well as xorg (6.8.2) both provide a
> GL/GLU implemetation.
If you look at:
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=libGL.so.1&searchmode=searchfiles&case=sensitive&version=unst
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#324474: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325150: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325509: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#324562: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323954: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323210: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322920: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321641: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:47 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#324275: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#322920: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:02:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#323954: fixed in xorg-x11 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Author: dnusinow
Date: 2005-08-31 15:57:15 -0500 (Wed, 31 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 573
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Inaugurate 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 changelog
Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/changelog 2
Author: dnusinow
Date: 2005-08-31 15:53:32 -0500 (Wed, 31 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 572
Added:
tags/6.8.2.dfsg.1-6/
Log:
Tag 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 release
Copied: tags/6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 (from rev 571, trunk)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
Author: dnusinow
Date: 2005-08-31 15:51:11 -0500 (Wed, 31 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 571
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Set changelog for 6.8.2.dfsg.1-6 release.
Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/changelog
Package: xorg-x11
Version: 6.8.2.dfsg.1-5
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
another build failure due to improper handling of DRI, while linking the
static debug Xorg:
/build/mbanck/xorg-x11-6.8.2.dfsg.1/build-tree/xc-xserver-xorg-dbg/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/i810/i830_driver.c:3323
Hi all,
It turns out that the reason why 6.8 -6 packages were FTBFS'ing for me
was because I had 6.9rc0 installed and had been too lazy to use pbuilder.
I'm building the current trunk now and I'll upload in a few hours when it's
finished and I've done some basic testing. Sorry everyone!
- Davi
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
3293 root 15 0 295m 219m 82m S 3.0 43.6 16:16.68 XFree86
Debian Sarge
Author: dnusinow
Date: 2005-08-31 07:56:50 -0500 (Wed, 31 Aug 2005)
New Revision: 570
Modified:
trunk/debian/rules
Log:
Reorder SPECIAL_DEPENDS assignment in debian/rules so as to properly match
i386
Modified: trunk/debian/rules
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 323977 x11-common
Bug#323977: Can't install xlibs_6.8.2.dfsg.1-5_all.deb
Bug reassigned from package `xlibs' to `x11-common'.
> merge 323977 323954
Bug#323954: updating x11-common
Bug#323977: Can't install xlibs_6.8.2.dfsg.1-5_all.deb
Bug#3229
reassign 323977 x11-common
merge 323977 323954
thanks
El miércoles, 31 de agosto de 2005 10:33, Debian Bug Tracking System escribió:
[...]
> > merge 323977 323954
>
> Bug#323954: updating x11-common
> Bug#323977: Can't install xlibs_6.8.2.dfsg.1-5_all.deb
> Mismatch - only Bugs in same state can b
> It should be packaged on its own (it's in Marillat's repository, IIRC),
> but certainly not in xbase-clients.
Why's that? xvinfo is also in xbase-clients.
Either way, it's not in the archive yet. I'd package it separately, just
don't want to step on anyone's toes.
Michael
--
To UN
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 323977 important
Bug#323977: Can't install xlibs_6.8.2.dfsg.1-5_all.deb
Severity set to `important'.
> merge 323977 323954
Bug#323954: updating x11-common
Bug#323977: Can't install xlibs_6.8.2.dfsg.1-5_all.deb
Mismatch - only Bugs in same stat
28 matches
Mail list logo
