On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:28:07PM +0200, Stefano Canepa wrote:
Stefano Canepa wrote:
Hi all,
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
At my LUG when we explain the installation process to new users we
present Mandriva and Debian
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 00:37 +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti a écrit :
The above library requirements apply to both GTK 2.9.0 and 2006-03-
26
CVS snapshot (which is older than 2.9.0 ).
More recent GTK CVS snapshots require glib 2.11, pango 1.11 ( and
DFB
0.9.25 i think).
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:48:30AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:09, Sven Luther wrote:
It is scheduled for release during may, which may or not be delayed a
bit. This is way this is an important point to get feedaback from the
release team and from the gtk-gnome team
Il giorno mar, 16/05/2006 alle 19.11 +0200, chantra ha scritto:
Hi,
Even though I prefer the textual installer or even no installers ;) see
http://www.debuntu.org/2006/05/14/51-how-to-installing-debian-etch-from-a-running-debian-based-system/
I reckon graphical as default is best.
Why? Just
Hello Frans,
could you stop using debian-release for the purpose of bashing Sven
Luther ?
As far as my understanding goes, Frans is not the one who expanded the
CC list. In short, faudrait peut-être pas trop déconner, quand même.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:27:38PM -0500, Christian Perrier wrote:
Hello Frans,
could you stop using debian-release for the purpose of bashing Sven
Luther ?
As far as my understanding goes, Frans is not the one who expanded the
CC list. In short, faudrait peut-être pas trop déconner,
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 23:40, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, another important point is, will we be using a separate
gtk-dfb 2.9/2.10 package set, or will we be using the main gtk debian
package ? In this second case, are the
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
That said, another important point is, will we be using a separate
gtk-dfb 2.9/2.10 package set, or will we be using the main gtk debian
package ? In this second case, are the gtk-gnome folk ready to move to
gtk 2.10 for etch ?
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
am I missing something?
No, you're not. This is an issue and it's going to take some advanced
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 23:40, Sven Luther wrote:
Another aspect not to forget about this too. We have made considerable
effort to bring the directfb code to gtk 2.9+. We have involved
external folk outside of d-i to help us and make
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
am I missing something?
No, you're not. This is an
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:40, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Why are you hanging always on the idea that we should use released
versions? For testing and (in some cases) for the final product a CVS
snapshot is more than good. We need testing if we desire the G-I to be
ready for etch, I think you agree,
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:37, you wrote:
I disagree, they is a lot of changes and new features for 2.10 and a
random 2.9 snapshot is not something we are wanting to ship with a
stable Debian
Thank you for this quick and sane reply.
pgpicDYPrUyAW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:40, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
Why are you hanging always on the idea that we should use released
versions? For testing and (in some cases) for the final product a CVS
snapshot is more than good. We need testing if we desire
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:59, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
I have addressed the concerns regading this point since the
minimeeting held some time ago[1] by proposing a solution that would
not interfere with the present packages.
See the reply by the Gnome maintainer for why this is not an option.
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:09, Sven Luther wrote:
It is scheduled for release during may, which may or not be delayed a
bit. This is way this is an important point to get feedaback from the
release team and from the gtk-gnome team now. I am CCing them on this.
As you are not the d-i or g-i
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:09 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
If we decide that 2.9+ and 2.10 is the way to go for etch, then we should be
pro-active for this, and start experimenting, and even making them the
default
NOW.
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:48:30AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:09, Sven Luther wrote:
It is scheduled for release during may, which may or not be delayed a
bit. This is way this is an important point to get feedaback from the
release team and from the gtk-gnome team
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:07:46AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:59, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
I have addressed the concerns regading this point since the
minimeeting held some time ago[1] by proposing a solution that would
not interfere with the present packages.
See the
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 08:36:56AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 08:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Eh, if you want to do gtk-dfb, you can't. The choice between using the
DirectFB backend or the X11 backend has to be done at compile time. Or
am I missing something?
No, you're
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 09:37, you wrote:
I disagree, they is a lot of changes and new features for 2.10 and a
random 2.9 snapshot is not something we are wanting to ship with a
stable Debian
Thank you for this quick and sane reply.
Please
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:07:45AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded
to
experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:09 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
If we decide that 2.9+ and 2.10 is the way to go for etch, then we should be
pro-active for this, and start experimenting, and even making them the default
NOW.
GTK 2.9 is GNOME 2.16 material, lot of packages Depends on GTK and
making
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded to
experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
packages also include the build of the .udebs, and upload to unstable a
version
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:58:52AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 10:23 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Ok, but if someone else would be packaging those to produce .udebs, you have
no particular objection to uploading .debs to experimental at the same time
?
Are
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:45:02AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
As written previously
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 10:23 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Ok, but if someone else would be packaging those to produce .udebs, you have
no particular objection to uploading .debs to experimental at the same time ?
Are you saying you want to hijack GTK now?
Sebastien Bacher
--
To
On 5/16/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded to
experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
packages also include
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
As written previously upstream changed the ABI number so updating to GTK
2.9 would require
As you are not the d-i or g-i release manager and currently not even on
the d-i team, it is _not_ your place to do this.
I object slightly (but hopefully we'll find time to discuss these
issues live). This has not been my reading of Sven's mails in that
particular thread.
IMHO, the
Hi
If i'm not wrong, current GTKDFB 2.0.9 libraries (binary .udeb and -
dev .deb) are built from a completly different source package than
regular GTKX libraries (currently 2.8.xx in unstable, IIRC).
Standard GTK libraries used in the Debian are built with the X
frontend, while GTK libraries
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:45 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
As written previously
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages aren't at the correct version,
having a different gtk2 source
On 5/16/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages aren't at the
On 5/16/06, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:45 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:06:03PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages
Hi,
Even though I prefer the textual installer or even no installers ;) see
http://www.debuntu.org/2006/05/14/51-how-to-installing-debian-etch-from-a-running-debian-based-system/
I reckon graphical as default is best.
Why? Just because awared user will instantly look toward FXs menus, but
a
On 5/16/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
_with_the_DFB_ backend, as
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
_with_the_DFB_ backend, as it is now for the 2.0.9 version?
Sure, no objection
Eddy Petrişor wrote:
On 5/16/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
On 5/16/06, Attilio Fiandrotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if i understand correctly, there should be definitely no problems in
moving to more recent GTKDFB libraries, right (no conflicts with GTKX
pavkages) ? do we all agree about moving to 2.9.0 (needs minor patches)
or CVS snapshot dated
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:36:48PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 18:42 +0300, Eddy Petrişor a écrit :
So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 21:55 +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti a écrit :
So, if i understand correctly, there should be definitely no problems in
moving to more recent GTKDFB libraries, right (no conflicts with GTKX
pavkages) ? do we all agree about moving to 2.9.0 (needs minor patches)
or CVS
Eddy Petrişor wrote:
On 5/16/06, Attilio Fiandrotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if i understand correctly, there should be definitely no problems in
moving to more recent GTKDFB libraries, right (no conflicts with GTKX
pavkages) ? do we all agree about moving to 2.9.0 (needs minor patches)
Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 00:37 +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti a écrit :
The above library requirements apply to both GTK 2.9.0 and 2006-03-26
CVS snapshot (which is older than 2.9.0 ).
More recent GTK CVS snapshots require glib 2.11, pango 1.11 ( and DFB
0.9.25 i think).
Does the 2006-03-26
Hi all,
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
At my LUG when we explain the installation process to new users we
present Mandriva and Debian and many users choise to install Mandriva
just for it's graphical installer or better
Stefano Canepa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
At my LUG when we explain the installation process to new users we
present Mandriva and Debian and many users choise to install Mandriva
just
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:53:15AM +0200, Stefano Canepa wrote:
Hi all,
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
My vote goes to default to the gui version.
(At least for the full CD (or full DVD))
At my LUG when we explain the
On 12:50 Mon 15 May , Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Could you make some screenshots of the partitioner? I haven't yet
found one that I find realy usable. Most certainly not the one in D-I.
I'm trying to do a gparted port in C for the D-I, it's not ready, but I
hope, I will have something to
hi,
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 01:55:50PM +0200, Xavier Oswald wrote:
I use the GTK function from GTK 2.6 so for the actual D-I it will be
hard to integrate. But Attilio had build a new one based on gtkdfb 2.9
that I will try.
I've tried to rebuild an image using the udebs provided by Attilio
On 14:04 Mon 15 May , Davide Viti wrote:
hi,
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 01:55:50PM +0200, Xavier Oswald wrote:
I use the GTK function from GTK 2.6 so for the actual D-I it will be
hard to integrate. But Attilio had build a new one based on gtkdfb 2.9
that I will try.
I've tried to
On Monday 15 May 2006 09:53, Stefano Canepa wrote:
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
In the short run we will use the newt (text) frontend as default.
I feel we should wait at least until the new upstream libraries are
available to
Geert Stappers wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:53:15AM +0200, Stefano Canepa wrote:
Hi all,
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
My vote goes to default to the gui version.
(At least for the full CD (or full DVD))
this sounds
Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 09:53, Stefano Canepa wrote:
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
In the short run we will use the newt (text) frontend as default.
I feel we should wait at least until the new upstream
On Monday 15 May 2006 16:46, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
What about using GTK libraries from CVS ? i386 experimental udebs i
built some times ago proved to work well (better than 2.0.9 regarding
fonts) and i can tell you the DFB backend they contain is much more
robust than the one contained in
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 05:15:41PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 16:46, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
What about using GTK libraries from CVS ? i386 experimental udebs i
built some times ago proved to work well (better than 2.0.9 regarding
fonts) and i can tell you the DFB
On 5/15/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 09:53, Stefano Canepa wrote:
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
In the short run we will use the newt (text) frontend as default.
I feel we should wait at least until
On 5/15/06, Attilio Fiandrotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 09:53, Stefano Canepa wrote:
the CD images with both graphical and textual installer will run
graphical as default?
In the short run we will use the newt (text) frontend as default.
I feel
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:04:50PM +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 15 May 2006 16:46, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
What about using GTK libraries from CVS ? i386 experimental udebs i
built some times ago proved to work well (better than 2.0.9 regarding
fonts) and i
On Monday 15 May 2006 23:40, Sven Luther wrote:
Another aspect not to forget about this too. We have made considerable
effort to bring the directfb code to gtk 2.9+. We have involved
external folk outside of d-i to help us and make this happen (I am
thinking of Dennis and Mike in particular
60 matches
Mail list logo
