Hi,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:15:15AM +0100, Jérémie Koenig wrote:
I intend to apply as a GSoC student for porting debian-installer to
the Hurd.
[...]
One question I have is about what organization I should submit my
application to. Both Debian and GNU have been accepted by Google as
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 568370 [INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf translation
Bug #568370 [win32-loader] win32-loader: [INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf translation
Changed Bug title to '[INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf translation' from
'win32-loader: [INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 511625 [INTL:ast] Asturian win32-loader templates translation
Bug #511625 [win32-loader] [INTL:ast] Asturian win32-loader templates
translation
Ignoring request to change the title of bug#511625 to the same title
thanks
Stopping
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 568370 [INTL:sk] Slovak translation
Bug #568370 [win32-loader] [INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf translation
Changed Bug title to '[INTL:sk] Slovak translation' from '[INTL:sk] Slovak
po-debconf translation'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 511625 [INTL:ast] Asturian win32-loader translation
Bug #511625 [win32-loader] [INTL:ast] Asturian win32-loader templates
translation
Changed Bug title to '[INTL:ast] Asturian win32-loader translation' from
'[INTL:ast] Asturian
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
How about merging the cdebconf{,-entropy,-terminal} and rootskel-gtk
patches, uploading those packages, while I'm uploading a new revision
of xorg-server disabling the udeb for sparc?
I'll take a look at that within the next couple of days. Don't
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (19/03/2010):
For the non-D-I parts that is fine, but the D-I parts can only be
pushed with the next D-I release.
I'm not sure whether it's feasible to push everything up to the
“libvte9-udeb, libgtk2.0-0-udeb, libpango1.0-udeb, gtk2-engines-udeb”
layer, that would
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I'm not sure whether it's feasible to push everything up to the
“libvte9-udeb, libgtk2.0-0-udeb, libpango1.0-udeb, gtk2-engines-udeb”
layer, that would break cdebconf-gtk-{entropy,terminal,udeb}?
That's not a problem as those udebs are currently
Hello Frans,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
If there are no surprises from a buildd point of view, we should be able
to ask for a push to testing in a few days.
For the non-D-I parts that is fine, but the D-I parts can only be pushed
with the next D-I
On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
I must be missing something but all affected modules look as safe to
move to testing since they're in initrd. Am I wrong?
Yes.
* cdebconf-entropy
* cdebconf-terminal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Hello Frans,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
I must be missing something but all affected modules look as safe to
move to testing since they're in initrd. Am I wrong?
Yes.
* cdebconf-entropy
*
Hi,
here is the current status (as far as I understood it from a quick
talk on #debian-gnome as well as from a recent thread on -boot@) for
X11-based d-i images.
Step 1:
---
We push everything needed for X Gnome. That means we don't push the
modified udebs maintained by d-i, so that we
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Otavio Salvador
ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
Hello Frans,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
I must be missing something but all affected modules look as safe to
move
On Friday 19 March 2010, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hey but we don't have g-i now so it won't be buildable but current
images are going to keep working. So no problem in moving them. Right?
Can you be 100% sure with these changes that the newt versions are not
going to break? I guess they
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
The following packages should be the ones broken by this push:
,---[ Packages in sid still depending on *directfb* udebs ]---
| cdebconf-gtk-entropy
| cdebconf-gtk-terminal
| cdebconf-gtk-udeb
These will be broken, as expected.
|
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 256237 wishlist
Bug #256237 [partman-base] The time between screens is annoyingly long
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'minor'
merge 256237 492086
Bug#256237: The time between screens is annoyingly long
Bug#492086: [optimization]
(I failed to include pkg-gnome in my first mail, I've bounced it
anyway; adding them for real now. Adding pkg-sdl as well.)
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (19/03/2010):
| libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb
This package should be dropped now. Hasn't that been done yet? I'd
consider migrating gtk+2.0
severity 256237 wishlist
merge 256237 492086
thanks
I did a fair bit of work on this recently. It was in the context of
Ubuntu's graphical installer
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubiquity/PartitionerOptimisation), but the bulk
of the optimisations applied to partman proper as well; it was much
easier
On Friday 19 March 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Would it seem acceptable to force the current package as is, and then fix
this right afterward?
[...]
Since I really would like to get stuff migrated ASAP (I would hate
blocking anyone), I think we should go for either breaking or dropping
it
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7
reassign 535447 grub-installer
Bug #535447 [debian-installer] debian-installer: no warning about grub's
incapability to boot from raid10
Bug reassigned from package
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7
reassign 535447 grub-installer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reassign 445211 partman-target
Bug #445211 [installation-reports] Should prevent using separate partitions for
/etc, /lib, /bin, /sbin, /dev
Bug reassigned from package 'installation-reports' to 'partman-target'.
Bug No longer marked as found in
reassign 445211 partman-target
tags 445211 pending
thanks
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:09:04AM -0500, nos...@wg3.net wrote:
I figured out what my problem is. I was setting up the /lib subdirectory as a
partition instead of leaving it to inhabit the root directory's partition.
Consequently,
Your message dated Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:25:59 +
with message-id 20100319152559.ga7...@riva.ucam.org
and subject line Re: Is it really necesary for the partitioner to check the
swap space?
has caused the Debian Bug report #261448,
regarding Is it really necesary for the partitioner to check the
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7
reassign 452697 rescue-mode
Bug #452697 [installation-reports] Rescue mode lists partitions in particularly
unhelpful manner
Bug reassigned from package
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7
reassign 261448 partman-basicfilesystems
Bug #261448 [installation-reports] Is it really necesary for the partitioner to
check the swap space?
Bug reassigned from package
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7
reassign 261448 partman-basicfilesystems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.35lenny7
reassign 452697 rescue-mode
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16:43 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
I'm pretty sure libx11 would benefit from this, as it has some code
that's not used by anything, but has to stay for ABI reasons. I believe
its locale data could be stripped down as well, somehow.
Looks like none of the Xlib
On Friday 19 March 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
Looks like none of the Xlib locale data is used by gtk apps, so I got a
libx11-6-udeb from the current
Installed-Size: 3700
to
Installed-Size: 1344
by removing that. Should help with the image size, I hope (although
this is mostly text, so
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 15:23:43 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
| libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb
This package should be dropped now. Hasn't that been done yet? I'd consider
migrating gtk+2.0 without dropping that package first an RC bug.
It's been removed afaict.
libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb |
(Removing the — typo'd — “tentative” bits from subject this time,
after a quick discussion on -b...@.)
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (19/03/2010):
Step 1:
---
We push everything needed for X Gnome. That means we don't push the
modified udebs maintained by d-i, so that we don't break
On 19/03/10 15:32, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
(I failed to include pkg-gnome in my first mail, I've bounced it
anyway; adding them for real now. Adding pkg-sdl as well.)
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (19/03/2010):
| libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb
This package should be dropped now. Hasn't that been
33 matches
Mail list logo
