Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662 - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662 - Debian ; Dave Beckett wrote: > The patch looks OK although I cannot test any directfb stuff, or do > any cairo work today. > > One reason the directfb was NOT enabled in the main cairo package > by me is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662

  1. Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662

    Dave Beckett wrote:
    > The patch looks OK although I cannot test any directfb stuff, or do
    > any cairo work today.
    >
    > One reason the directfb was NOT enabled in the main cairo package
    > by me is that it is unsupported upstream. The customer for debian
    > is really just the installer, so limiting the packages for that
    > was a goal, and also to make the udeb minimal size. Any
    > reported bugs on directfb outside the installer are unlikely to
    > get any resolution from me or upstream.
    >
    > So the larger issue is the release-affecting consequences of
    > this change. Please can somebody confirm that's it's approved
    > by release team BEFORE any packaging is done.


    Cc-ed debian-boot to be sure it does no harm on the installer nor the
    installation.

    Cheers

    Luk



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662

    Luk Claes writes:

    > Dave Beckett wrote:
    >> The patch looks OK although I cannot test any directfb stuff, or do
    >> any cairo work today.
    >>
    >> One reason the directfb was NOT enabled in the main cairo package
    >> by me is that it is unsupported upstream. The customer for debian
    >> is really just the installer, so limiting the packages for that
    >> was a goal, and also to make the udeb minimal size. Any
    >> reported bugs on directfb outside the installer are unlikely to
    >> get any resolution from me or upstream.
    >>
    >> So the larger issue is the release-affecting consequences of
    >> this change. Please can somebody confirm that's it's approved
    >> by release team BEFORE any packaging is done.

    >
    > Cc-ed debian-boot to be sure it does no harm on the installer nor the
    > installation.


    I fear it is a late change for now but I'll let Jeremy who has been
    the most involved person on this topic to speak up about that.

    Jeremy?

    --
    O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
    ---------------------------------------------
    E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
    GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
    Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
    ---------------------------------------------
    "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
    you the whole house."



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662

    Le jeudi 02 octobre 2008 20:52 +0200, Luk Claes a crit :
    > Dave Beckett wrote:
    > > The patch looks OK although I cannot test any directfb stuff, or do
    > > any cairo work today.
    > >
    > > One reason the directfb was NOT enabled in the main cairo package
    > > by me is that it is unsupported upstream. The customer for debian
    > > is really just the installer, so limiting the packages for that
    > > was a goal, and also to make the udeb minimal size. Any
    > > reported bugs on directfb outside the installer are unlikely to
    > > get any resolution from me or upstream.
    > >
    > > So the larger issue is the release-affecting consequences of
    > > this change. Please can somebody confirm that's it's approved
    > > by release team BEFORE any packaging is done.

    >
    > Cc-ed debian-boot to be sure it does no harm on the installer nor the
    > installation.


    I have prepared updated packages for cairo and GTK+:
    http://malsain.org/~joss/debian/

    It would be nice if the installer people could check that all udebs work
    fine with this version, and that they can all be rebuilt. Theoretically,
    there should be zero issue at runtime. As for building, cdebconf and
    gtk2-engines will fail until we remove the -l flag, others should build
    without a change.

    Cheers,
    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI5VR7rSla4ddfhTMRAunqAJ41yWxfN0v6cC0MMjB9qu SmiP3DfgCg6KAX
    n6Cbq6Rc2+kZwSuguqRON9U=
    =uWzD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  4. Bug#499662: Proposed changes for #499662

    Jérémy Bobbio writes:

    > I have rebuilt cdebconf with these packages after updating the
    > Build-Depends and removing the special dh_shlibdeps case for
    > cdebconf-gtk-udeb. Building and testing an installer with the resulting
    > udebs lead to a successful installation.
    >
    > Using the updated cairo and gtk+2.0 udebs without rebuilding cdebconf
    > also lead to a working installer.


    What is your opinion about this change to be accepted in Lenny? Since
    you have not find any issue with it I'm temped to support this unblock.

    --
    O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
    ---------------------------------------------
    E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
    GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
    Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
    ---------------------------------------------
    "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
    you the whole house."



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread