Around 6 o'clock on Apr 5, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Do we have any contanct with them? would it be wise to ask the status of
> their project and perhaps start to work a bit closer?
Yes, I have reasonably regular contact with a couple of their developers.
I'm not sure what the status of t
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Keith Packard wrote:
>
> Around 14 o'clock on Apr 4, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> > That's why I stressed the testing information and added an example. Forget
> > a machine park of that size. simply impossible to handle.
>
> Impossible for Debian to manage, but not impossi
Around 14 o'clock on Apr 4, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> That's why I stressed the testing information and added an example. Forget
> a machine park of that size. simply impossible to handle.
Impossible for Debian to manage, but not impossible for the entire
community, especially if you inclu
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Keith Packard wrote:
> Fixes which affect only one video driver should be subject to
> significantly less scrutiny than fixes which affect libraries or the core
> X server itself. Of course, letting those drivers be released on an
> hourly basis would make this a lot less pain
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> As i see it X differs mostly from apache in this regard: it is a
> bitch because of the hardware. i would like to see the
> machinepark and logistics to be able to compile and test all the
> patches.
That's why I stressed the testing information and a
Around 11 o'clock on Apr 3, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> As i see it X differs mostly from apache in this regard: it is a
> bitch because of the hardware. i would like to see the
> machinepark and logistics to be able to compile and test all the
> patches.
It's precisely like the kernel in this reg
* Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040403 09:01]:
> Testing the bug fixes. This is extremely important at this point in time.
> Do not commit bug fixes without testing them. We are not in the position
> to ruin uploads with FTBFS. Always try to test on as many archs as you
> can. Of cour
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 06:58:02PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you
> > > downgraded the bug in the first place. There is no explanation in the BTS
> > > and the downgrade was
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 08:43:59AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > but I'll just say that I have no confidence in the XSF as a team. Not to
> > do with you, or Michel, or anything, but I have no confidence that it is
> > a team in the true collabor
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> I'm in a hurry this morning, so I can't give a substantive response for
> a couple of hours,
Ok I am looking forward to a full response.
> but I'll just say that I have no confidence in the XSF as a team. Not to
> do with you, or Michel, or anything, but
[note that i am moving the thread to debian-x only since it would be OT
for the others]
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Whether this fix goes into the next release is a decision for the
> XFree86 4.3.0-8 release manager to make. :)
I think that there is no need for a RM to take a
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 06:58:02PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > The RM position is all yours if Branden agrees.
>
> This is where imho you miss the point. It is OUR decision who has to take
> the position as RM inside OUR team. Noone until now
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:12:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you
> downgraded the bug in the first place.
For context, we're talking about #239991.
I would probably have made the same call, given that lost keystrokes
On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 18:58, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > The RM position is all yours if Branden agrees.
>
> This is where imho you miss the point. It is OUR decision who has to take
> the position as RM inside OUR team. Noone until now has bee
Let's go back to debian-x only. I don't think we need to pester the other
mailing list anymore.
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Even if i am silent on the list (as you know i am quit busy during these
> > days, and if you don't please read -private) lack of response doesn't mean
> >
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:12:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> > applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> > am release-managing. However, it
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:30:07AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > I didn't see that; all I saw was 'why is no-one asking to be RM :('.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/debian-x-200403/msg03703.html
Ahr. Perfect, I am not.
--
Daniel St
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> I didn't see that; all I saw was 'why is no-one asking to be RM :('.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/debian-x-200403/msg03703.html
Fabio
--
fajita: step one
Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
fajita: step two
W
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC.
Even if i am silent on the list (as you know i am qu
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:03:03AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> BTW - If you have a bug which you believe deserves to be marked RC you
> can always just tag it is sarge and sid as well to have it effectively
> ignored for migration purposes.
That's not technically true at the moment, although it'
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 01:53:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> > applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> > am release-managi
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC.
Fabio volunteered as well. Why
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:50:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:22:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of
> > > it; the exact same
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:50:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:22:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of
> > it; the exact same bug is present in XFree86 4.2.1, already in sarge.
> >
> > http://bug
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:22:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of
> it; the exact same bug is present in XFree86 4.2.1, already in sarge.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libx11-6
I don't disagree with
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > Kamion said the only t
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > Kamion said the only t
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > >...
> > > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> > > I promptly down
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >...
> > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> > I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> > because of t
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>...
> Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
Please don't forge
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:40:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390.
> > > There's no othe
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:40:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390.
> > There's no other new upstream version IMHO worth actually delaying the
> > release fo
* J M Cerqueira Esteves wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 20:29, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > after a discussion with Branden on IRC last week, I decided to
> > take up the woody part of our XFree86 4.3 packages. I have working
> > backports (working as in "works for me"), but I need some
> > feedbac
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 20:29, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after a discussion with Branden on IRC last week, I decided to take up
> the woody part of our XFree86 4.3 packages.
> I have working backports (working as in "works for me"), but I need
> some feedback.
Thanks for your backport.
Thanks for sending this clarification, Norbert.
And thanks for keeping woody users' options open. :)
--
G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness. It is
Debian GNU/Linux |a growing closer. It beats the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |hell
* Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> A: Because 4.3.0-2.woody.1 > 4.3.0-1.woody.1
Stupid me. That should be "4.3.0-2.woody.1 > 4.3.0-2".
Norbert
Hi Branden,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> As you may have noticed, the last 4.3.0-1 item is done[1].
congratulation to all the XFS
> Two security flaws have recently been discovered in XFree86, and the
> Debian Security Team has been in contact with me about them.
* Tobias Hain wrote:
> > Maybe there's a problem with the backward compatibility of
> > freetype.
>
> Unfortunately there is. The KDE 3.2.0 woody backport of Ralph Nolden
> conflicts here.
Supporting a mixture of backports from different repositories is
impossible.
Norbert
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:29:24PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
>> after a discussion with Branden on IRC last week, I decided to take up
>> the woody part of our XFree86 4.3 packages.
>
> Glad to see you've succeeded where I failed. Thanks a lot fo
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:29:24PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> after a discussion with Branden on IRC last week, I decided to take up
> the woody part of our XFree86 4.3 packages.
Glad to see you've succeeded where I failed. Thanks a lot for doing
this!
- David Nusinow
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:11:05AM +0500, Michail Rusinov wrote:
> Hello, Debian X Strike Force.
>
>I've a question about XFree86 4.3.0. I want to build it for Testing
> distribution, but it's sources build-depends on cpp-3.2, and
> conflicts with gcc-3.3 (<< 1:3.3.2-0pre1). But I've
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:11:05AM +0500, Michail Rusinov wrote:
> Hello, Debian X Strike Force.
>
>I've a question about XFree86 4.3.0. I want to build it for Testing
> distribution, but it's sources build-depends on cpp-3.2, and
> conflicts with gcc-3.3 (<< 1:3.3.2-0pre1). But I've
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:23:27PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:01:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Probably the best thing for you to do is install and switch to the
> > debugging X server so that a reasonable core dump can be obtained and
> > used for a backtrace.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:23:27PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:01:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Probably the best thing for you to do is install and switch to the
> > debugging X server so that a reasonable core dump can be obtained and
> > used for a backtrace.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:01:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Probably the best thing for you to do is install and switch to the
> debugging X server so that a reasonable core dump can be obtained and
> used for a backtrace.
I will try 0pre1v2 first, then install the debugging server for tha
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:01:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Probably the best thing for you to do is install and switch to the
> debugging X server so that a reasonable core dump can be obtained and
> used for a backtrace.
I will try 0pre1v2 first, then install the debugging server for tha
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:24:33AM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> In the middle of an uneventful X session where I was simply typing some
> stuff up in vim, it aborts on signal 11 and flings me back into the
> console. As per the crash advice, I've attached the XFree86.0.log,
> although it doesn't see
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:24:33AM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> In the middle of an uneventful X session where I was simply typing some
> stuff up in vim, it aborts on signal 11 and flings me back into the
> console. As per the crash advice, I've attached the XFree86.0.log,
> although it doesn't see
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 06:49:20PM -0700, TongKe Xue wrote:
> I am currently trying to install XFree86 4.3.0 (through the
> 4.3.0-p1v1 *.debs in the experimental section) on a laptop that uses
> an ati radeon mobility graphics card. How can I best document my
> successes/failures with the package
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 06:49:20PM -0700, TongKe Xue wrote:
> I am currently trying to install XFree86 4.3.0 (through the
> 4.3.0-p1v1 *.debs in the experimental section) on a laptop that uses
> an ati radeon mobility graphics card. How can I best document my
> successes/failures with the package
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 10:50:43AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is not nice, i suppose that it is a debhelper bug then, which should
> > take only the strongest of the two dependencies or something.
>
> dpkg-shlibdeps is not in debhelper.
But is called by dh_shlibdeps.
But
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 10:39:45AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:21:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> > > since it will not have the
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:20:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd
> > cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one,
> > and apparently didn't rebuild
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:37:52PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while
> > they are waiting in the new queue ? I wish to build them, and try to
> > work on providing the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:37:52PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while
> > > they are waiting in the ne
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while
> they are waiting in the new queue ? I wish to build them, and try to
> work on providing the driver SDK this weekend.
http://auric.debian.org/~branden/
> I tried
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:28:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd
> > cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one,
> > and apparently didn't rebuild the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:28:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > BTW, is it to early to upload my gnome-randr-applet package, which
> > > depends on 4.3.0 ? I have it r
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:21:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> > since it will not have the right dependencies.
>
> BTW, i have this problem with the packages :
Sven Luther wrote:
> It is not nice, i suppose that it is a debhelper bug then, which should
> take only the strongest of the two dependencies or something.
dpkg-shlibdeps is not in debhelper.
--
see shy jo
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:39:55AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> > since it will not have the right dependencies.
>
> You do realize that pre1v1 is in experimenta
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 10:50:43AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > It is not nice, i suppose that it is a debhelper bug then, which should
> > take only the strongest of the two dependencies or something.
>
> dpkg-shlibdeps is not in debhelper.
But is called by dh_shlibdeps.
But
Sven Luther wrote:
> It is not nice, i suppose that it is a debhelper bug then, which should
> take only the strongest of the two dependencies or something.
dpkg-shlibdeps is not in debhelper.
--
see shy jo
pgpc88ILOqXXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 10:39:45AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:21:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> > > since it will not have the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> since it will not have the right dependencies.
You do realize that pre1v1 is in experimental, yea?
--
Daniel Stone <
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:21:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> > since it will not have the right dependencies.
>
> BTW, i have this problem with the packages :
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:20:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd
> > cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one,
> > and apparently didn't rebuild
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd
> cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one,
> and apparently didn't rebuild the 003 patch. I will attach here the
> fixed version.
The problem is tha
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd
> cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one,
> and apparently didn't rebuild the 003 patch. I will attach here the
> fixed version.
The problem is tha
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:28:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > BTW, is it to early to upload my gnome-randr-applet package, which
> > > depends on 4.3.0 ? I have it r
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:39:55AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> > since it will not have the right dependencies.
>
> You do realize that pre1v1 is in experimenta
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I just need a 4.3.0 package to build with. The -0ds4 would not be ok,
> since it will not have the right dependencies.
You do realize that pre1v1 is in experimental, yea?
--
Daniel Stone <
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:28:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yep, the problem is that branden added the define CppCmd
> > cpp-3.2 in the 003a patch, which gets applied just before the 003 one,
> > and apparently didn't rebuild the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:37:52PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while
> > > they are waiting in the ne
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:37:52PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while
> > they are waiting in the new queue ? I wish to build them, and try to
> > work on providing the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Is there somewhere the 4.3.0-pre1v1 source package are available while
> they are waiting in the new queue ? I wish to build them, and try to
> work on providing the driver SDK this weekend.
http://auric.debian.org/~branden/
> I tried
76 matches
Mail list logo
