Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:17:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Um, you seem to have left out + 049_remove_duplicate_XShm_prototype.diff Which does indeed need to be forward-ported (although it turns into a stolen-from-HEAD patch). (Or maybe it doesn't need to be forward-ported due to its unimportance?) Hmm, that was just plain notated wrong. Bad. And you also seem to have dropped the font path catalog change in + 906_debian_xfs.diff which may actually matter (or may not, I dunno). Thanks. I've put these on the short list to fix for 4.3.0-1. -- G. Branden Robinson| Why should I allow that same God Debian GNU/Linux | to tell me how to raise my kids, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | who had to drown His own? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Green Ingersoll signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:48:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote: +Post 4.3.0-1 + snip +* Rewrite xserver-xfree86 debconfage. Joey Hess and Eduard Bloch have provided + good input. Aside from their input, what do you have in mind for the rewrite? I'd actually like to take an early stab at it, if I might. I know you're not a perl fan Branden, but I'd feel more comfortable working in perl, and I think the extra tools that it brings along could help a lot. One thing I'd like to have is a real parser for XF86Config-4, rather than the md5sum hack, and I think perl would allow this where it would be very difficult in shell. Then again, I'm no shell expert so feel free to prove me wrong. - David Nusinow
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:15:29PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:48:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote: +* package the driver SDK. + + being worked on in people/daniel. Given I can't commit, and didn't work on it for ages before I got kicked out, this is kind of (very) misleading. Yes indeed. I sent Branden a clean patch a few month ago, and he said he would apply it post 4.3.0-1, so i hope this would be fixed in a few days/weeks, whatever. I just hope Branden didn't loose the patch or something, as i would hate to have to redo it a third time because of it getting lost when i did it. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
[Please don't send mail both to the -x list and to me privately. There is no need.] On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:15:29PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:48:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote: +* package the driver SDK. + + being worked on in people/daniel. Given I can't commit, and didn't work on it for ages before I got kicked out, ...you should have removed it when you *could* still commit. this is kind of (very) misleading. I'll remove it now. (Committed revision 999.) -- G. Branden Robinson| There's something wrong if you're Debian GNU/Linux | always right. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Glasow's Law http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
[The following is a form letter.] Hello, You recently sent a message to a Debian Project mailing list to which I am subscribed, and also included me in the To or CC header. Please don't do this. The Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct says: When using the Debian mailing lists, please follow these rules: [...] * When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. (You can review the entire Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct at URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/.) Rationally interpreted, this of course includes anything that works equivalently to a CC, such including the original poster in the To: or Bcc: headers, forwarding the message to the original poster, or using the bounce feature of some mailers to send the message again, but rewriting the SMTP envelope to address the original poster instead of the list. Some people feel that it is best to send email to everyone who might possibly be interested in a message, indifferent to whom might be subscribed to various mailing lists, be part of the expansion of various mailing lists, be behind an SMTP exploder, and so forth -- in other words, that it is the responsibility of the recipient of duplicate mail messages to handle them. The Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct does not endorse that philosophy. There are proven limitations with using procmail rules to eliminate duplicate message based on Message-ID, for instance. More importantly, the Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct expects the *senders* of mail to exercise discretion and good judgement; it does not place the burden of pruning unwanted copies of mail messages upon the recipient. You can find discussions of this aspect of the Mailing List Code of Conduct in the Debian mailing lists themselves, if you are interested: please see URL:http://lists.debian.org/search.html to perform a search. The subject has come up several times over the past years, and time and again, the existing policy has been affirmed as the wisest course of action. Many people, myself included, use the Mail-Followup-To message header, which is honored by mail user agents such as Mutt to control the distribution of replies to mailing lists; using such a header, a person can easily indicate that he does (or does not) want to be send copies of replies to his message. You may want to use an MUA that honors this header, as it is in fairly wide usage on the Debian mailing lists, and may help you avoid mistakes resulting in inadvertent violations of Debian's Mailing List Code of Conduct. Thank you. On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 04:27:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:15:29PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:48:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote: +* package the driver SDK. + + being worked on in people/daniel. Given I can't commit, and didn't work on it for ages before I got kicked out, this is kind of (very) misleading. Yes indeed. I sent Branden a clean patch a few month ago, and he said he would apply it post 4.3.0-1, so i hope this would be fixed in a few days/weeks, whatever. I just hope Branden didn't loose the patch or something, as i would hate to have to redo it a third time because of it getting lost when i did it. Mailing a patch to the BTS is a better way of ensuring it doesn't get lost. -- G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux |thinking, they'll love you; but if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hate you.-- Don Marquis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 06:04:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] * When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be copied. What about proper Headers instead of longish pseudo-legalese? Any sane person either epects him/her in the To line for replies or sets headers. And while I'll trey to follow this suggestion for debian lists I'm pretty sure I'll forget it one day, and I'll surely not take care of it when cross-posting.
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 05:15, Daniel Stone wrote: * Package freedesktop.org X libraries (~50% done in my repo). Interesting, where's your repo? * Start migration to Mesa 5 (the one from Mesa themselves, not this xlibmesa crap). There are already Mesa 5 packages (apt-cache showsrc mesa), what do you mean? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:02, Daniel Stone wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:00:37AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 05:15, Daniel Stone wrote: * Start migration to Mesa 5 (the one from Mesa themselves, not this xlibmesa crap). There are already Mesa 5 packages (apt-cache showsrc mesa), what do you mean? Migrate to them, and away from xlibmesa* (i.e. stop providing). Mesa will have to make that possible first, even version 6 can't yet build a libGL capable of direct rendering with an X server. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:00:37AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 05:15, Daniel Stone wrote: * Package freedesktop.org X libraries (~50% done in my repo). Interesting, where's your repo? You can try 'deb http://ftp-master.kde-debian.org/archive/ workstation-unstable x11', but you'll be disappointed; there's not much there. * Start migration to Mesa 5 (the one from Mesa themselves, not this xlibmesa crap). There are already Mesa 5 packages (apt-cache showsrc mesa), what do you mean? Migrate to them, and away from xlibmesa* (i.e. stop providing). -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgpoQYOsLl6y2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:48:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin wrote: +* package the driver SDK. + + being worked on in people/daniel. Given I can't commit, and didn't work on it for ages before I got kicked out, this is kind of (very) misleading. +Probably for 4.4.0 +== +* Split xbase-clients. xbase-clients should be broken into functional + groups probably mostly determined by library dependencies; xauth, the + Athena clients, and libGL-linked clients are all good candidates for + splitting) And my TODO: * Package freedesktop.org X libraries (~50% done in my repo). * Package fonts/docs externally. * Assess best layout for programs (e.g. TWM, most of xbase-clients) - whether they should be a separate xfree86-programs tarball, or separate in their own right; also, use fd.o/other upstream for programs not from XFree86/not actively maintained there anymore. * Start migration to Mesa 5 (the one from Mesa themselves, not this xlibmesa crap). * Server-only build of XFree86, eliminating the stupidly big and scary tarball. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgpWtmDOSPpZj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: rev 998 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian
+* Investigate/forward-port the following patches from trunk: + + 067_nonexecutable_malloced_mem.diff + + 068_riscpc_ioport_fix.diff + + 070_fbdevhw_device_node_warnings.diff + + 083_i810_do_not_reference_undefined_functions.diff + + 201_alpha_truetype_gcc_bugfix.diff + + 203_Xpm_wordsize.diff + + 351_newport_range.diff + (see patch forward-port status chart below for more details) Um, you seem to have left out + 049_remove_duplicate_XShm_prototype.diff Which does indeed need to be forward-ported (although it turns into a stolen-from-HEAD patch). (Or maybe it doesn't need to be forward-ported due to its unimportance?) And you also seem to have dropped the font path catalog change in + 906_debian_xfs.diff which may actually matter (or may not, I dunno).
