Please update d-i manual translations for Wheezy
Hello all, [You received this mail, because you did uploads of translations for the d-i manual between 2008 and now. Names and mail addresses were taken from your Alioth profile.] in preparation of the Wheezy release it would be fine, if you could take some time and update the d-i manual translation for your language. This is probably the last chance to get an up-to-date translation on the CDs for Wheezy. Sorry, if this is a bit late for you ... In behalf of the debian-installer team Holger -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Powered by Sylpheed 3.0.2 under Debian GNU/ / _ _ _ _ _ __ __ / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / // /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\6.0 / Squeeze. Registered LinuxUser #311290 - http://counter.li.org/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720093119.916dda6c.li...@wansing-online.de
Re: Please update d-i manual translations for Wheezy
On Vi, 20 iul 12, 09:31:19, Holger Wansing wrote: Hello all, [You received this mail, because you did uploads of translations for the d-i manual between 2008 and now. Names and mail addresses were taken from your Alioth profile.] Hi, Eddy Petrișor for Romanian hasn't been active for quite some time. Do you have some stats for Romanian handy? If it's just a few strings I could do it, otherwise I'd rather conserve my energy to keep d-i in shape and update the Release Notes (when the time will come). Kind regards, Andrei P.S. you might want to CC the relevant -l10n-language as well for such inquiries, translators are not required to follow -i18n and coordinators may be MIA. -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ask for d-i manual translations updates
Hi, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Holger Wansing (li...@wansing-online.de): I have prepared a list of the uploaders for their languages, based on the svn logs back to 2008. Languages that didn't receive any update since 2008, have no uploaders in that list. I need to add real names and mail addresses there... Would it be ok / would it make sense to add such list to the svn repo? (I would volunteer to keep that list up-to-date.) Actually, there is room for this in installer/doc/i18n/languages.xml: language_entry code=de code3=deu english_name=German bkp_coord_name=Dennis Stampfer bkp_coord_email=se...@debian.org bkp_coord_account=seppy bkp_coord_gpg=0xEFAA3331 coord_name=Jens Seidel coord_email=jenssei...@users.sf.net coord_account=jseidel-guest manual_coord_name=Holger Wansing manual_coord_email=h.wans...@onlinehome.de manual_coord_account=holger-guest team_email=debian-l10n-ger...@lists.debian.org team_repository= supported=woody speakers=95392978 speakers_corr=10100 countries_official=DEATBEDKITLILU countries_most_spoken=DEATCHLI Puuh, I wasn't aware of the debian-installer git repo and of this file. At least for german, it is out of date, Dennis Stampfer and Jens Seidel are no longer active (since several years already). And: Adding the translator info from the d-i manual in that file would mix up everything completely: often there are different translators for the d-i and the d-i manual. So, these have to be separated, to be useful. Since the d-i manual has its own svn repository, I would vote for adding a separate list there. Holger -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Powered by Sylpheed 3.0.2 under Debian GNU/ / _ _ _ _ _ __ __ / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / // /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\6.0 / Squeeze. Registered LinuxUser #311290 - http://counter.li.org/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720100351.e7bee887.li...@wansing-online.de
Re: Please update d-i manual translations for Wheezy
Hi, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Eddy Petrișor for Romanian hasn't been active for quite some time. Ok, thanks for the info. I will remove him from my list of d-i translators. Do you have some stats for Romanian handy? If it's just a few strings I could do it, otherwise I'd rather conserve my energy to keep d-i in shape and update the Release Notes (when the time will come). bookinfo.po 7t preface.po 4t using-d-i.po168t53f233u welcome.po 60t8f4u We had translation statistics on http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/ but since our good old Frans past, this site is no longer maintained and statistics are out-of-date. Kind regards, Andrei P.S. you might want to CC the relevant -l10n-language as well for such inquiries, translators are not required to follow -i18n and coordinators may be MIA. If they follow their l10n-language list, I would assume that they also follow their private mail addresses, right? Of course, it could be good for finding new translators for the d-i manual. Therefore, I will resent that mail to the respective l10n lists. Thanks Holger -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Powered by Sylpheed 3.0.2 under Debian GNU/ / _ _ _ _ _ __ __ / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / // /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\6.0 / Squeeze. Registered LinuxUser #311290 - http://counter.li.org/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720102247.2cd72e3d.li...@wansing-online.de
Re: Please update d-i manual translations for Wheezy
On Vi, 20 iul 12, 10:22:47, Holger Wansing wrote: Do you have some stats for Romanian handy? If it's just a few strings I could do it, otherwise I'd rather conserve my energy to keep d-i in shape and update the Release Notes (when the time will come). bookinfo.po 7t preface.po4t using-d-i.po 168t53f233u welcome.po60t8f4u That's a bit too much for me at the moment. If they follow their l10n-language list, I would assume that they also follow their private mail addresses, right? Of course, it could be good for finding new translators for the d-i manual. Therefore, I will resent that mail to the respective l10n lists. That's what I meant (finding potential new translators). Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
please unblock kmod
It was uploaded before the freeze cutoff, but it needs an ack by the d-i team. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#682211: wheezy installation report: some rough edges
Subject: installation-reports: d630 Package: installation-reports Severity: normal (sorry for lack of logs, sending from different machine) -- Package-specific info: Boot method: Image version: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/wheezy_di_alpha1/i386/iso-cd/debian-wheezy-DI-a1-i386-netinst.iso 12-May-2012 02:45 Date: Date and time of the install Machine: Dell Latitude D630 Partitions: df -Tl will do; the raw partition table is preferred Base System Installation Checklist: [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Initial boot: [O] Detect network card:[O] Configure network: [E] Detect CD: [O] Load installer modules: [O] Clock/timezone setup: [ ] User/password setup:[O] Detect hard drives: [O] Partition hard drives: [E] Install base system:[O] Install tasks: [E] Install boot loader:[O] Overall install:[O] Comments/Problems: * If I leave the domain field empty in the hostname selection screen, resolv.conf expectedly only gets a nameserver line, and the resolver does not resolve my (non-fully-qualified) proxy name. Although it is normal, I have to switch to tty4, where the log just tell that the mirror does not carry wheezy (sic). * I do not remember any prompt telling me to check time, but TZ is correctly set * when partitionning (assisted lvm), double clicking on a partition to see details, then back to main screen, the partition is still selected and clicking on continue unexpectedly just enters the same partition-editing dialogs again * only a single task to be selected in the installer (standard system utilities), probably why no desktop env has been installed (selected XFCE) * selecting task-french, task-french-desktop, task-xfce triggers conflict between - myspell-fr and myspell-fr-gut - hunspell-en-us and myspell-en-us * I would have expected http_proxy to be propagated to /etc/environment, not just to apt.conf (although for a laptop it is probably better not to do that) Those seem to be problems of the package versions on install CD, but fixed in current wheezy: * no extended package descriptions are downloaded by apt on first update after install, only on second update * aptitude with french l10n does not translate yes/no to oui/non in confirmation dialogs, but does it only accepts o instead of y (not any more after upgrade ?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720120159.6c7f6...@chalon.bertin.fr
Bug#655198: live-installer does not remove live packages in the installed system
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:35:56PM +0100, Rui Bernardo wrote: Today I've built debian sid live images with live-installer 36. It's working, thanks. This bug can be closed for wheezy, but what about squeeze? When I was going to try to fix this bug in squeeze, and after reading live-installer changelog, building version 31 udeb file and including it in a squeeze live image, it turned out to be obvious that version 31 was supposed to be uploaded to squeeze. I suppose that time passed, d-i development continued and live-installer 31 never made to squeeze. live-installer 31 removed the live packages correctly in the end of the installation. Version 30, the one in squeeze, does not. Dear maintainers, could you please upload live-installer version 31 to squeeze so it is included in squeeze 6.0.6 and close this bug? tyvm. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720113200.ga25...@gmail.com
Bug#401175: Could offer to set a label on swap partitions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The installer still doesn't support swap labels as of Debian Wheezy.
As persistent device naming using label or UUID is now preferred over
the traditional
bus names for disks, this would be a useful addition to partman.
I've tried using this partman expert recipe fragment in a preseed file:
300 400 500 linux-swap\
method{ swap }\
label{ swap } \
format{ } \
But it seems that the label directive is ignored for swap, because
this doesn't label the swap partition.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAlAJR+AACgkQy4enOlZ7nzrCxQCgyp02phOKf0XUlPpkACLWJzvO
SW0AoMy1/H/SymKOnBj2OrtxoZTbbmjn
=xhOO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/500947e0.7000...@nta-monitor.com
Re: Please update d-i manual translations for Wheezy
Quoting Andrei POPESCU (andreimpope...@gmail.com): On Vi, 20 iul 12, 09:31:19, Holger Wansing wrote: Hello all, [You received this mail, because you did uploads of translations for the d-i manual between 2008 and now. Names and mail addresses were taken from your Alioth profile.] Hi, Eddy Petrișor for Romanian hasn't been active for quite some time. Do you have some stats for Romanian handy? If it's just a few strings I could do it, otherwise I'd rather conserve my energy to keep d-i in shape and update the Release Notes (when the time will come). Well, here it is: bookinfo :Charset is UTF-8. Stats: bookinfo.po: 7 translated messages. preface :Charset is UTF-8. Stats: preface.po: 4 translated messages. using-d-i :Charset is UTF-8. Stats: using-d-i.po: 168 translated messages, 53 fuzzy translations, 233 untranslated messages. welcome :Charset is UTF-8. Stats: welcome.po: 60 translated messages, 8 fuzzy translations, 4 untranslated messages. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
EFI BoF at DebConf
[ Please note the cross-post and Reply-To ] Hi folks, Here's a summary of what we discussed in the EFI BoF [1] last week (9th July). Thanks to the awesome efforts of the DebConf video team, the video of the session is already online [2] in case you missed it. I've also attached the Gobby notes that were taken during the session. Again, thanks to the people who took part - we had a useful discussion. UEFI - background = Newer PCs are now coming with a BIOS replacement (UEFI). This provides a very different set of firmware interfaces to the traditional BIOS that will require different boot methods. For now, PC motherboards are continuing to ship with legacy BIOS support but this won't last forever. In Debian, we need to make sure we build in support for UEFI in various places: * debian-installer * boot CDs (both installer and live) * boot loader(s) There is also a second part to this puzzle: Microsoft's Secure Boot specification. System vendors wanting MS certification for their hardware (i.e. just about all vendors) will be required to ship their hardware with Secure Boot enabled by default, although they will also be required (on x86 systems) to include a method for end users to disable Secure Boot somehow. Buyers of Windows systems based on ARM CPUs will *not* get the same freedom. Supporting UEFI === We already have some of the necessary components in Debian, but we need to make sure that we support things all the way from initial CD/USB/network boot through installation and partitioning to installing an EFI-capable boot loader. People are planning on tackling this, hopefully in time for the Wheeze release. This should not be *too* difficult, we hope. Most of the session was taken up by discussion of... Secure Boot (or should that be Restricted Boot?) == We're most likely too late to do much about this in Debian for Wheezy. There's a lot of work that would be needed, and a lot of decisions to be taken. I was hoping that this BoF might be the venue for those decisions, but that was too optimistic about what might happen in a 45-minute session. What we should expect: if Debian does not implement SB, then users wishing to install Debian on MS-certified hardware will have a much more awkward experience than previously, needing to navigate through the firmware setup interface on their machine to find the place to disable SB before. Only then will they be able to boot install/live media. It will be difficult for us to help much on this front. What others have done/said about SB === * Fedora - RedHat * Everything signed * Full signing of the kernel stack. You even have to sign modules, so it complicates stuff for things like DKMS. * Ubuntu - Canonical * not persuaded that it is safe to use GPLv3 bootloaders - differs from FSF view of the issue under best current legal advice with respect to their pre-installed requirements in-house. * for now avoids going the path of fully signing the kernel stack * for now: prevent the user to have anything to do with BIOS, SecureBoot key handling, etc. * FSF * Tend to think that GPLv3 issues (such as risking the obligation to release private key content) are either not an issue or that the license can be changed to avoid them http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/whitepaper-web Future UEFI SB changes == Comes down to MS certification requirements as to what actually ships. Must be possible to disable SecureBoot but will practically be done via access to the firmware: usability obstacle. No clarity on how users can install their own keys, down to particular vendor variability. Part of the spec but not necessarily implemented by vendors - best effort only and might not work for all. Likelihood of changes in MS requirements via public pressure vs pressure on OEMs? MS are not an implementor, certifier instead. Working with individual OEMs won't provide 100% coverage. Some clarifications have been made as a result of bad press from the initial announcements. Note: MS trying to implement a different mechanism / monopoly play on ARM, including no requirement for SecureBoot to be capable of being disabled on ARM. Increasing deployment of ARM devices will become important. Makes Windows phones much less appealing as hackable devices. Larger customers may be able to stipulate particular configurations or OS-less hardware but this isn't just a hobbyist problem. Reasons behind the spec include virus protection which is being pushed by some of the larger customers for the hardware. HP want users to run what they want to run but also take into account requirements from the same customers about protecting what does run. Debian and SB? == What are the limitations on extra keys? Is another key useful? * could be unlikely to get a
Re: debian-cd BoF at DebConf
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 03:01:37PM -0600, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: Here's a summary of what we discussed in the debian-cd BoF [1] last week (9th July). Thanks to the awesome efforts of the DebConf video team, the video of the session is already online [2] in case you missed it. I've also attached the Gobby notes that were taken during the session. Again, thanks to the people who took part - we had a very useful discussion. Was there any discussion about integration of Debian Pure Blends into d-i and Debian Live? Nope. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast. Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720230202.gd...@einval.com
Re: debian-cd BoF at DebConf
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:01:21PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: Hi! On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 17:19:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: CD sizing problems == There has been much discussion about switching packages over to using xz compression instead of gzip by default, including Hideki Yamane's excellent session Let's shrink Debian package archive! [3]. Ansgar has been looking into the possibilities here of re-building a subset of the core packages using xz, and I think it's clear that this is the solution for Wheezy at least. In discussion after Hideki's xz talk, I think there was broad agreement that we should just switch to xz by default, *but* with the option to use a different (or even null) compressor where it makes sense (e.g. in packages full of already-compressed files such as open-clipart). There has been a suggestion that we should leave base packages using gzip for the sake of foreign users of debootstrap, but I firmly believe we should just tell them they'll need xz in future. Let's not hold ourself back here... I cooked a patch for dpkg several weeks ago, when this got discussed in debian-devel, to add configurable default compressor at dpkg build time and to switch it to xz for Debian, including updated documentation, etc. So if there's agreement, and the release team would accept this change, then I can quickly prepare such dpkg upload. Let's ask the RT then... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com This dress doesn't reverse. -- Alden Spiess -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120720230315.gf...@einval.com
Re: debian-cd BoF at DebConf
Hello, directing this mail to -dpkg@, which hopefully makes sense. Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com (21/07/2012): On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:01:21PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: Hi! On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 17:19:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: CD sizing problems == There has been much discussion about switching packages over to using xz compression instead of gzip by default, including Hideki Yamane's excellent session Let's shrink Debian package archive! [3]. Ansgar has been looking into the possibilities here of re-building a subset of the core packages using xz, and I think it's clear that this is the solution for Wheezy at least. In discussion after Hideki's xz talk, I think there was broad agreement that we should just switch to xz by default, *but* with the option to use a different (or even null) compressor where it makes sense (e.g. in packages full of already-compressed files such as open-clipart). There has been a suggestion that we should leave base packages using gzip for the sake of foreign users of debootstrap, but I firmly believe we should just tell them they'll need xz in future. Let's not hold ourself back here... I cooked a patch for dpkg several weeks ago, when this got discussed in debian-devel, to add configurable default compressor at dpkg build time and to switch it to xz for Debian, including updated documentation, etc. So if there's agreement, and the release team would accept this change, then I can quickly prepare such dpkg upload. Let's ask the RT then... dpkg's current diff between testing and unstable, once *.po and *.gmo stripped is: 323 files changed, 7307 insertions(+), 4626 deletions(-) There's #681332 about that, which was left unanswered. Also, I didn't see a diff for that compressor thingy. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ask for d-i manual translations updates
Quoting Holger Wansing (li...@wansing-online.de): Adding the translator info from the d-i manual in that file would mix up everything completely: often there are different translators for the d-i and the d-i manual. So, these have to be separated, to be useful. Well, as there are separate entries for both, why not keep them together? This file generates http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/doc/i18n/languages.html, this is the maint reason to keep things together. Definitely, this file needs love. I update it when a new language is added, but often fail to adapt its content when a translator takes the work over (mostly, because this is often a gradual change). And, yes, when I looked at the file, seeing seppy's name, while I haven't heard from him since 2005, was quite a shame for me. So, in short, /me needs help to maintain the file..:-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: EFI BoF at DebConf
Hi Steve, Thanks for the summary of the EFI BoF. If you don't mind, I'm going to piggy-back on this to provide a bit more info about Secure Boot. Some of this is just expanding on your notes with clarifications; other bits are new information I've gleaned while attending the UEFI Summer Summit this week. But don't ask me to remember which parts are which, as it's all run a bit together in my head. ;) With many of my comments, I may be giving the impression that I think things aren't that bad and that everything will be ok with Secure Boot. I am in fact very concerned about Secure Boot; we have some significant challenges ahead for continued after-market compatibility with commodity machines as a result of this change. But to meet those challenges, we need to be focused on the issues that are actually going to cause a problem. For instance, I *don't* think we should be worried that machines will go out the door with the Windows 8 logo on them while failing to correctly implement SB (including the disable and customization capabilities). The Microsoft team working on this are quite serious about getting it right, and they do have a compliance testing process that exercises the SB aspect of the requirements. So while there may be a machine or two slipping through to market that don't support SB in the required manner, these would be bugs - and I have every reason to believe Microsoft will be open to bug reports about them. The things that are worrying me, and that I therefore think we need to focus on, are the areas where the Win8 requirements *don't* cover us. On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:34:13PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: There is also a second part to this puzzle: Microsoft's Secure Boot specification. Nitpick: Secure Boot is part of the UEFI specification; the part here that's Microsoft's is the policy around how SB is to be used. System vendors wanting MS certification for their hardware (i.e. just about all vendors) will be required to ship their hardware with Secure Boot enabled by default Bearing in mind that they're only required to do this for Windows 8 certification. Some machines may ship with Windows 8 preinstalled, but not have SB enabled and thus not be certified; some may continue to ship with Windows 7; some server machines may (at least in the short term) come with firmware that doesn't implement Secure Boot. And some vendors may ship with Windows 8 preinstalled but fail the Win8 certification requirements because they've managed to not actually support disabling SB and/or updating keys. Small comfort that this will result in them not being able to use the Windows 8 logo if it means we won't be able to use the machines at all. Ironically this last bit means that the Windows 8 logo may wind up being the *best* indicator of Linux compatibility for UEFI hardware. Only time will tell what we see in the market. Future UEFI SB changes == Comes down to MS certification requirements as to what actually ships. Must be possible to disable SecureBoot but will practically be done via access to the firmware: usability obstacle. More than just a practical implementation detail, it's by design that you will only be able to disable SecureBoot via the firmware. To allow a UEFI application to disable SecureBoot for you noninteractively would almost completely undermine the security model. Now, I can't actually think of a way that a UEFI application that *only* disabled SB could be used to compromise a machine remotely; but it's in the Windows 8 reqs that the firmware must not allow SB to be disabled programmatically. (System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot 18) No clarity on how users can install their own keys, down to particular vendor variability. James Bottomley appears to be addressing this: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/efitools.git Provided you can get the machine into setup mode or custom mode in the first place (which is supposed to be guaranteed by the Win8 reqs), the tools here should allow you to non-interactively install your own keys without resorting to the vendor's firmware UI. Part of the spec but not necessarily implemented by vendors - best effort only and might not work for all. FWIW, my understanding is that MS's logo compliance testing is expected to catch this case. It is quite possible that one or more OEM's will simply not bother to implement the option to disable SecureBoot or put it in but not adequately test it. Current certification requires a switch to be available but no requirement for this to be obvious. Turned off, the machine cannot or may not be able dual-boot Windows8 depending if turning it off means switching firmware to BIOS compatibility mode or just not cheching the signature from EFI. Hmm, I don't remember this being discussed during the BoF. I think it's clear from context that when the Win8 requirements speak of disabling Secure Boot, they mean not enforcing
Bug#680668: Updating chinese-t-desktop in tasksel for Wheezy.
Hi Fourdollars, 2012/7/15 Shih-Yuan Lee (FourDollars) fourdoll...@gmail.com: Could you point out which features of ibus-chewing are not expected? I would like to fix them. Here we are discussing is for wheezy which is in a freeze stage. So that all the new features are no related. Thank you for your efforts to get all expected features implemented in ibus-chewing. Here are some feature requests and bugs opened in upstream: http://goo.gl/m0VyJ PS. I'd love to confirm and test all features after you fixed in sid. Please DO NOT keep cc not related new features discussion to #680668. Cheers, -- -Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cacpy4otxkc9aoxzzi8qknzkxuceum1vbessogqmujdi8trk...@mail.gmail.com
