On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Daniel van Vugt
wrote:
> I'm kind of saying we should stop using:
>lp:mir/ubuntu
> and instead use:
>lp:ubuntu/mir
>
> However that's not quite correct. You should target proposed first, so
> actually we would target:
>lp:ubuntu/wily-proposed/mir
The p
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Daniel van Vugt
wrote:
> I guess the way we want to and should maintain ABIs is that the contents of
> a stanza MIR_SERVER_N { } never changes (although you can always add a new
> stanza MIR_SERVER_N+1 with changes). So store a historical copy of existing
> "ABIs"
g again. Or, at least,
> hit the next problem :)
Is this the classic problem caused by removing the runtime dependencies from
the Mir packaging and requiring them to be
pre-seeded in the system images?
Darren, if you add the mir-graphics-drivers-desktop package (eg. to your oem
snap) does it work?
--
Stephen M. Webb
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
ce >= critical then don't release". And there's no other level we can
> use for that other than critical (or
> 'high' later as the project matures).
I have to agree with this. If the bug is not critical enough to block a
release, it shouldn't be classed a
heets/d/1RbTVDbx04ohkF4-md3wAlgmxbSI1DttstnT6xdcXhZQ/pubchart?oid=1566479835&format=interactive
Nice.
--
Stephen M. Webb
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
