Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Samuel Thibault]

Bastian Blank, le Sun 15 Feb 2009 22:14:54 +0100, a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
> > DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
> > using X11 instead. 
> 
> Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
> - the X server,
> - evdev input module and
> - a framebuffer video module.
> 
> Anything else?

Potentially graphical accessibility stuff too...

I don't know whether Orca/gnome-mag can work with a DirectFB GTK, I fear
it can't.

Samuel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [directfb-dev] [lu...@debian.org: Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid]

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 23:50 +0100, Masse Nicolas wrote:

> just to say that I made a patch in order to get the last version of gtk
> working with directfb. This pach is available here:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=126611&action=view
> 
> Probably not perfect, but at least with this patch GTK is compiling and
> running. (I had some graphical artifacts when I test it, but I don't
> know if my patch is in cause, and  I'm not filling myself able to solve
> it).

I have made a patch based on the one from Ubuntu and based on your work.
This seems to restore basic functionality of the DirectFB backend.
Scrolling doesn't work and popups seem broken as well. But I guess this
is still better than having a tree that doesn't even compile. Unless
someone objects I will commit this to trunk tonight and merge the
changes to the gtk-2-14 branch. We can then have a closer look at the
other outstanding patches.

See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554407


Sven



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [directfb-dev] [lu...@debian.org: Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid]

[Masse Nicolas]

Hi,

just to say that I made a patch in order to get the last version of gtk
working with directfb. This pach is available here:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=126611&action=view

Probably not perfect, but at least with this patch GTK is compiling and
running. (I had some graphical artifacts when I test it, but I don't
know if my patch is in cause, and  I'm not filling myself able to solve
it).

I submited this one month ago, but this hasn't been reviewed yet.


Nicolas.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [directfb-dev] Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 20:49 +0100, Sven Neumann a écrit :
> Please note that I can only commit changes to trunk (and then merge them
> to the gtk-2-14 branch). There's no point in applying changes to the
> gtk-2-12 branch as that branch is obsolete.

The patches I pointed to you apply to the 2.14 branch. I haven’t tried
with trunk, though.

> Currently it appears that neither gtk-2-14 nor gtk+ trunk compile if the
> DirectFB backend is selected. We need to address this before anything
> else. So is there a patch that deals with the internal API changes so
> that the tree can at least be compiled again? That would be the first
> patch that gets committed.

The two Ubuntu patches may be what you are looking for, since version
2.14.7 builds fine using them. 

> > There are also some patches coming from Ubuntu, but I don’t know if
> > there are corresponding reports in bugzilla:
> > http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1/071_correct_directfb_declarations.patch
> > http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1/072_workaround_directfb_build.patch
> 
> The GTK+ development process requires bug reports to be opened in the
> GNOME bug tracker before a change can be made in the gtk+ tree. Please
> do that if you want those changes to be applied upstream.

I’d prefer if the original author of the patches, or at least someone
who clearly understands the rationale behind them, could submit the
bugs. Here is the corresponding changelog entry (from Sébastien
Bacher) :
  * debian/patches/071_correct_directfb_declarations.patch:
- rename functions for the offscreen rendering changes
  * debian/patches/072_workaround_directfb_build.patch:
- don't use an incorrect structure variable to fix build issue

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.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: [directfb-dev] Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 18:34 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 17:54 +0100, Sven Neumann a écrit :
> > I can get your patches into gtk+ SVN if you do the patch review. Just
> > point me to bug reports at bugzilla.gnome.org that have patches for
> > GTK-DirectFB attached that you want to see committed and I will take
> > care of committing them into GTK+ trunk. I can also merge them to the
> > stable branch if they apply without too much hassle.
> 
> You can start with the existing ones for 2.12 :)
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=447118 (only the first patch).
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543710

I have added comments to these two.

Please note that I can only commit changes to trunk (and then merge them
to the gtk-2-14 branch). There's no point in applying changes to the
gtk-2-12 branch as that branch is obsolete.

Currently it appears that neither gtk-2-14 nor gtk+ trunk compile if the
DirectFB backend is selected. We need to address this before anything
else. So is there a patch that deals with the internal API changes so
that the tree can at least be compiled again? That would be the first
patch that gets committed.

> There are also some patches coming from Ubuntu, but I don’t know if
> there are corresponding reports in bugzilla:
> http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1/071_correct_directfb_declarations.patch
> http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1/072_workaround_directfb_build.patch

The GTK+ development process requires bug reports to be opened in the
GNOME bug tracker before a change can be made in the gtk+ tree. Please
do that if you want those changes to be applied upstream.


Sven



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [directfb-dev] Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 17:54 +0100, Sven Neumann a écrit :
> I can get your patches into gtk+ SVN if you do the patch review. Just
> point me to bug reports at bugzilla.gnome.org that have patches for
> GTK-DirectFB attached that you want to see committed and I will take
> care of committing them into GTK+ trunk. I can also merge them to the
> stable branch if they apply without too much hassle.

You can start with the existing ones for 2.12 :)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=447118 (only the first patch).
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543710

There are also some patches coming from Ubuntu, but I don’t know if
there are corresponding reports in bugzilla:
http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1/071_correct_directfb_declarations.patch
http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1/072_workaround_directfb_build.patch

-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and 
  `-told that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: [directfb-dev] Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 17:26 +0100, Davide Viti wrote:

> So I see the issue, I also see patches floating around (such as
> mentioned by Colin Watson e.g.) and I'm also willing to but effort in
> this to get it working again.
> 
> Thing is, with the submitted patch, I do not see someone at GTK
> picking things up here. 

I can get your patches into gtk+ SVN if you do the patch review. Just
point me to bug reports at bugzilla.gnome.org that have patches for
GTK-DirectFB attached that you want to see committed and I will take
care of committing them into GTK+ trunk. I can also merge them to the
stable branch if they apply without too much hassle.


Sven

PS: Yes, I have commit access and yes, the GTK+ developers trust me
enough to allow me to commit to their tree. But I would still like to
see patches go through bugzilla.gnome.org nevertheless.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 17:26 +0100, Davide Viti a écrit :
> So I see the issue, I also see patches floating around (such as
> mentioned by Colin Watson e.g.) and I'm also willing to but effort in
> this to get it working again.
> 
> Thing is, with the submitted patch, I do not see someone at GTK
> picking things up here.   
>   So to ask a dumb question: how to proceed on 
> this? Who to bug?
> Or can I get/SVN/do things myself in the GTK repository?

If you have working patches against GTK+ 2.14, please send them at the
pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org ML. We can include them in
the Debian packages directly; there are already some DirectFB-specific
patches for which we didn’t wait for upstream. Our current patch set is
avaible there : 
http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/gtk+2.0/2.14.7-1

Please also submit the patches to bugzilla.gnome.org and tell us the bug
numbers. Once you get approval from the upstream maintainers, several
Debian maintainers have the rights to commit them there.

Thanks a lot for your interest in fixing this.

-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and 
  `-told that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Davide Viti]

I've forwarded lunar's message to the directfb ML (directfb-...@directfb.org)
and got the following reply:

-

From: Niels Roest 
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:47:00 +0100
To: Davide Viti 
Subject: Re: [directfb-dev] [lu...@debian.org: Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to
    sid]

Hi Davide,
this is a bit silly but I have mail problems.
I can not post to debian.org and our system admin is not around.
So this is my second account.
Please use ni...@directfb.org as 'official'.

So I see the issue, I also see patches floating around (such as
mentioned by Colin Watson e.g.) and I'm also willing to but effort in
this to get it working again.

Thing is, with the submitted patch, I do not see someone at GTK
picking things up here. 
So to ask a dumb question: how to proceed on this? 
Who to bug?
Or can I get/SVN/do things myself in the GTK repository?

Maybe you can post this in debian.org.

Greets
Niels

-

I think I remember Denis (firectfb maintainer) saying he was taking over the
mainteinance of the GTK port (hope I'm right);
I'm sure Attilio got the rights to commit changes to the GTK repository;
will try to ping him but IMO it would be useful having also someone else
(actively working on this) to rely on.

regards,
Davide

PS: feel free to stop this massive cross-posting if needed...


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:49:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 12:16 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > XKB data, a number of libraries, a "fixed" font, I guess. 
> 
> Some sort of XKB data will probably be needed by console-setup, AIUI
> (although looking closer it seems that the keymaps are pre-built for
> console-setup-udeb, so maybe not).

Correct, console-setup-udeb doesn't need independent XKB data; it builds
a much smaller file for itself that contains the requisite information.

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Julien Cristau]

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 12:16 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 22:14 +0100, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> > Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
> > - the X server,
> > - evdev input module and
> > - a framebuffer video module.
> > 
> > Anything else?
> 
> XKB data, a number of libraries, a "fixed" font, I guess. 
> 
Some sort of XKB data will probably be needed by console-setup, AIUI
(although looking closer it seems that the keymaps are pre-built for
console-setup-udeb, so maybe not).  The fixed font can be built into
libXfont so doesn't require external dependencies.

> Currently GTK+ X11 needs libX11, libXcomposite, libXcursor, libXdamage,
> libXext, libXfixes, libXi, libXinerama, libXrandr and libXrender. Most
> of them could be dropped for a udeb build, but we might want to keep
> some of them; at least libXrender which is needed anyway by cairo and
> libXi which would be useful for shipping GTK+ input methods in the
> installer.
> 
The extension libraries are pretty small anyway.  libx11-6 and
libx11-data are the bigger parts though.

Cheers,
Julien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 22:14 +0100, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
> - the X server,
> - evdev input module and
> - a framebuffer video module.
> 
> Anything else?

XKB data, a number of libraries, a "fixed" font, I guess. 

Currently GTK+ X11 needs libX11, libXcomposite, libXcursor, libXdamage,
libXext, libXfixes, libXi, libXinerama, libXrandr and libXrender. Most
of them could be dropped for a udeb build, but we might want to keep
some of them; at least libXrender which is needed anyway by cairo and
libXi which would be useful for shipping GTK+ input methods in the
installer.

-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and 
  `-told that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Jérémy Bobbio]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:04:10PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> > Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
> >> > DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
> >> > using X11 instead. 
> […] 
> I fear that if no one step ahead to maintain the directfb backend we'll
> end without any other option.

Excecutive summary:
  Solving this issue is DirectFB maintainers responsability.

Denis Oliver Kropp (DirectFB upstream) regularily works on patches to
update the DirectFB backend for GTK+, as the archives of the
directfb-dev mailling-list shows.

I am unsure on how well these patches get integrated in GTK+ upstream,
but they do exists.  DirectFB itself needs to be updated for Squeeze, and
IIRC, the last versions of GTK+/DirectFB do not work with the version of
DirectFB currently in Lenny/Sid.

So the first step to solve this is IMHO to look more closely at the
status of DirectFB librairies and backends; and this should probably be
done by DirectFB maintainers.

Depending on how easy it would be to update DirectFB before GTK+, it
could make sense to delay the introduction of the newer GTK+ version to
keep the graphical installer available…

However, if nothing is ready by now, breaking the graphical installer
for a few weeks is something that can IMHO be considered in such early
stages of the release cycle.

(And switching to X11 is a no-no, except if huge amount of people shows
 up right now to undertake of the massive amount of work required.)

Cheers,
-- 
Jérémy Bobbio.''`. 
lu...@debian.org: :Ⓐ  :  # apt-get install anarchism
`. `'` 
  `-   


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Otavio Salvador]

Luis Matos  writes:

> Dom, 2009-02-15 às 22:14 +0100, Bastian Blank escreveu:
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
>> > DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
>> > using X11 instead. 
>> 
>> Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
>> - the X server,
>> - evdev input module and
>> - a framebuffer video module.
>> 
> humm ... i am just a dumb debian user, but, besides the size, the gtk
> direct framebuffer implementation was made also because of performance
> issues related with having the Xserver loaded, right? (not only because
> disk space)

I fear that if no one step ahead to maintain the directfb backend we'll
end without any other option.

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: ota...@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-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Otavio Salvador]

Bastian Blank  writes:

> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
>> DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
>> using X11 instead. 
>
> Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
> - the X server,
> - evdev input module and
> - a framebuffer video module.
>
> Anything else?

Few libraries like libx11 and such. Another possibility would be to use
kdrive but it is not well supported as Xorg.

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: ota...@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-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Luis Matos]

Dom, 2009-02-15 às 22:14 +0100, Bastian Blank escreveu:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
> > DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
> > using X11 instead. 
> 
> Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
> - the X server,
> - evdev input module and
> - a framebuffer video module.
> 
humm ... i am just a dumb debian user, but, besides the size, the gtk
direct framebuffer implementation was made also because of performance
issues related with having the Xserver loaded, right? (not only because
disk space)



> Anything else?
> 
> Bastian
> 
> -- 
> Leave bigotry in your quarters; there's no room for it on the bridge.
>   -- Kirk, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Julien BLACHE]

Bastian Blank  wrote:

Hi,

> Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
> - the X server,
> - evdev input module and
> - a framebuffer video module.
>
> Anything else?

HAL and DBus to go with input-evdev, I guess?

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer -  
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Bastian Blank]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
> DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
> using X11 instead. 

Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition
- the X server,
- evdev input module and
- a framebuffer video module.

Anything else?

Bastian

-- 
Leave bigotry in your quarters; there's no room for it on the bridge.
-- Kirk, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Colin Watson]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 05:05:35PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Josselin Mouette  writes:
> > Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 15:00 -0300, Otavio Salvador a écrit :
> >> >   * Broken graphical installer, until someone updates our GTK+
> >> > DirectFB patches
> >> <...>
> >> > Is all of that OK with the release team?
> >> 
> >> - From d-i POV this is a serious issue since we will not allowed to test
> >> the graphical installer. I'd much prefer to hold it until the DirectFB
> >> patches are ready.
> >
> > And who will provide these patches? No one has been working on GTK+
> > DirectFB for a long time. 
> 
> [ I've added debian-boot ml to CC ]
> 
> I understand that you wish to update GNOME, specially GTK, in unstable
> but I think this can't make installer broken as a conseguence.
> 
> Your comment fears me even more since it does look that we can end up
> without directfb support for long time... I think you agree with me that
> Graphical Installer can't be droped from Debian without a lot of people
> being unhappy and tagging it as a really serious regression for user POV
> so having it in mind I believe we need to find an alternative for it.
> 
> Who was last people that worked at those patches? Could them help us on
> that?

There are some patches that haven't yet been applied upstream that might
help. See for example http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554407;
IIRC GdkWindowImpl is the main change that the directfb backend hasn't
followed.

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Otavio Salvador]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 17:05 -0300, Otavio Salvador a écrit :
>> Your comment fears me even more since it does look that we can end up
>> without directfb support for long time... I think you agree with me that
>> Graphical Installer can't be droped from Debian without a lot of people
>> being unhappy and tagging it as a really serious regression for user POV
>> so having it in mind I believe we need to find an alternative for it.
>
> Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
> DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
> using X11 instead. 
>
>> Who was last people that worked at those patches? Could them help us on
>> that?
>
> Attilio Fiandrotti did a great job with GTK+ 2.10, but didn’t give much
> news since. 

Hello Attilio,

We've having a bad time with GTK DirectFB support for lastest GTK
release; are you still interested to work on it with us?

TIA,

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: ota...@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-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 17:05 -0300, Otavio Salvador a écrit :
> Your comment fears me even more since it does look that we can end up
> without directfb support for long time... I think you agree with me that
> Graphical Installer can't be droped from Debian without a lot of people
> being unhappy and tagging it as a really serious regression for user POV
> so having it in mind I believe we need to find an alternative for it.

Unless you can find someone who is committed to make GTK+ work on the
DirectFB backend, I strongly recommend that the installer considers
using X11 instead. 

> Who was last people that worked at those patches? Could them help us on
> that?

Attilio Fiandrotti did a great job with GTK+ 2.10, but didn’t give much
news since. 

> In case they can't, do we have someone interested to work at it inside
> of GNOME/GTK/Debian GNOME team?

I don’t think so, but of course any help is welcome.

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.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

[Otavio Salvador]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 15:00 -0300, Otavio Salvador a écrit :
>> >   * Broken graphical installer, until someone updates our GTK+
>> > DirectFB patches
>> <...>
>> > Is all of that OK with the release team?
>> 
>> - From d-i POV this is a serious issue since we will not allowed to test
>> the graphical installer. I'd much prefer to hold it until the DirectFB
>> patches are ready.
>
> And who will provide these patches? No one has been working on GTK+
> DirectFB for a long time. 

[ I've added debian-boot ml to CC ]

I understand that you wish to update GNOME, specially GTK, in unstable
but I think this can't make installer broken as a conseguence.

Your comment fears me even more since it does look that we can end up
without directfb support for long time... I think you agree with me that
Graphical Installer can't be droped from Debian without a lot of people
being unhappy and tagging it as a really serious regression for user POV
so having it in mind I believe we need to find an alternative for it.

Who was last people that worked at those patches? Could them help us on
that?

In case they can't, do we have someone interested to work at it inside
of GNOME/GTK/Debian GNOME team?

Cheers,

-- 
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
 E-mail: ota...@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-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org