Re: Bug#1076598: bullseye-pu: package gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2+deb11u1

Simon McVittie (2024-07-19): > I have not yet attempted to build a debian-installer image with the > proposed GTK. > > [ Risks ] > Low risk, straightforward backport of a targeted security fix. > > One risk here is that Debian 11.11 is intended to be its last schedule

Re: Bug#1076596: bookworm-pu: package gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2+deb12u1

Simon McVittie (2024-07-19): > Sorry, I should have remembered that because GTK 2 is used in the > graphical installer, this update will require a d-i ack. (Full text > and diff quoted below.) Please go ahead, I'll double check once it lands in pu. In the very worst case, we co

Bug#1076609: bullseye-pu: package gtk+3.0/3.24.24-4+deb11u4

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: gtk+...@packages.debian.org, secur...@debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:gtk+3.0 [ Reason ] CVE-2024-6655. The security team has

Bug#1076603: bookworm-pu: package gtk+3.0/3.24.38-2~deb12u2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bookworm User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: gtk+...@packages.debian.org, secur...@debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:gtk+3.0 [ Reason ] CVE-2024-6655. The security team has

Bug#1076598: bullseye-pu: package gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2+deb11u1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye d-i User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: gtk+...@packages.debian.org, secur...@debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:gtk+2.0 [ Reason ] CVE-2024-6655. The security team has

Re: Bug#1076596: bookworm-pu: package gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2+deb12u1

Control: tags -1 + d-i On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 at 12:29:05 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > [ Reason ] > CVE-2024-6655. The security team has indicated that they do not intend > to release a DSA for this vulnerability. > > [ Impact ] > If not fixed, GTK 2 apps will load

Bug#1036315: rootskel-gtk: Alpha/missing pixels on the borders of the PNG banner

Control: tags +patch Hello maintainers of rootskel-gtk, On Fri, 19 May 2023 10:58:35 +0200 Cyril Brulebois wrote: When building the package on bullseye, I'm getting transparency on both left and right borders. When building it on sid, I'm get that at the bottom. It would be great if we had

Bug#961590: marked as done (Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds)

Your message dated Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:01:50 +0200 with message-id <88ad7768-b56d-4a1f-a50d-95604cc5b...@linaro.org> and subject line Bug not present in Trixie (resend from proper email address) has caused the Debian Bug report #961590, regarding Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom i

Re: Custom gtk installer similar to Proxmox VE installer

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 03:35:15AM +, pve-hgoi9uef wrote: > Hello, > > I have been attempting to package my software (.deb packages served > by a repository) into a custom Debian GNU/Linux installer for > redistribution. I have been using the GTK netboot installer with a

Custom gtk installer similar to Proxmox VE installer

Hello, I'm not too familiar with mailing lists, so please excuse any mistakes I may make. I have been attempting to package my software (.deb packages served by a repository) into a custom Debian GNU/Linux installer for redistribution. I have been using the GTK netboot installer with a preseed

Processed: Bug#1036886 marked as pending in rootskel-gtk

Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #1036886 [src:rootskel-gtk] Text input fields very hard to identify in high contrast / dark mode Added tag(s) pending. -- 1036886: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036886 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Processed: Re: Bug#967799: RM: vte / depends on deprecated GTK 2

Processing control commands: > block -1 by 887649 Bug #967799 [src:vte] vte: depends on deprecated GTK 2 967799 was not blocked by any bugs. 967799 was blocking: 947713 Added blocking bug(s) of 967799: 887649 -- 967799: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=967799 Debian

Bug#1036321: marked as done (rootskel-gtk: Include metadata about the banner)

Your message dated Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:52 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1036321: fixed in rootskel-gtk 12.0.2 has caused the Debian Bug report #1036321, regarding rootskel-gtk: Include metadata about the banner to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Processed: Re: Bug#1036321: rootskel-gtk: Include metadata about the banner

Processing control commands: > tag -1 patch pending Bug #1036321 [rootskel-gtk] rootskel-gtk: Include metadata about the banner Added tag(s) patch and pending. -- 1036321: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036321 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.

Bug#1036321: rootskel-gtk: Include metadata about the banner

the Makefile, as it is done for the logo files themselves): [banner] # supported values: left, right label-position = right # supported values: left, right, both expand-direction = both See: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/rootskel-gtk/-/commit/306e00e96b I'm not entirely the cu

Bug#1036321: rootskel-gtk: Include metadata about the banner

Package: rootskel-gtk Version: 12.0.1 Severity: normal Hi, Until now, we've always been favoring one side of the banner, and that's been encoded in cdebconf-gtk: starting the installer in “Rescue” will result in a (translated) label being printed on top of the banner, either on the left

Bug#1036317: rootskel-gtk: Please consider shipping a “dark” version of the banner

Package: rootskel-gtk Version: 12.0.1 Severity: normal Hi, Spotted while toying with the idea of having some code to expand the banner automatically on the left and/or on the right, and finding the cdebconf-gtk code handling the “dark” banner. Trying theme=dark, I'm getting the same banner

Bug#1036315: rootskel-gtk: Alpha/missing pixels on the borders of the PNG banner

Package: rootskel-gtk Version: 12.0.1 Severity: normal Hi, When building the package on bullseye, I'm getting transparency on both left and right borders. When building it on sid, I'm get that at the bottom. It would be great if we had some better or at least reproducible export. Since

Bug#787279: installation-reports: still present in rootskel-gtk 11.0.2

Followup-For: Bug #787279 Control: reassign -1 rootskel-gtk Having just tested this again, I see that setting `dpms=true` on the kernel command line has no effect, as reported in this bug. In the mean time, I note that we no longer have screen-blanking going on in the text-mode (console) install

Processed: installation-reports: still present in rootskel-gtk 11.0.2

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 rootskel-gtk Bug #787279 [installation-reports] Cannot disable screen blanking with Jessie preseed installation Bug reassigned from package 'installation-reports' to 'rootskel-gtk'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #787279 to the s

rootskel-gtk is marked for autoremoval from testing

rootskel-gtk 11.0.1 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2022-06-30 It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs: 1011146: nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470: CVE-2022-28181, CVE-2022-28183, CVE-2022-28184, CVE-2022-28185, CVE-2022-28191, CVE-2022-28192 https://bugs.debian.org/1011146

Re: Bug#1005694: bullseye-pu: package gtk+3.0/3.24.24-4+deb11u1

Hi, Adam D. Barratt (2022-02-19): > Thanks. That looks OK to me, but will need a d-i ack as gtk+3.0 builds > a udeb; tagging and CCing accordingly. d-i in bullseye is still on gtk2 (sorry), so gtk3 should be a no-brainer. :) Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)

Re: Bug#1005694: bullseye-pu: package gtk+3.0/3.24.24-4+deb11u1

y avoid the bug, it's > unclear.) > Thanks. That looks OK to me, but will need a d-i ack as gtk+3.0 builds a udeb; tagging and CCing accordingly. > We have also had requests to resolve #982925 in bullseye, but there > are > two options for how to resolve that bug, and it's awkward t

installation-reports: Installation in some languages hangs due to gtk bug

This has been fixed in cdebconf/0.258 See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987449 So closing these bugs. -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076

Re: Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

Hi, On 25-05-2021 01:01, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > I'm happy to have gtk+2.0 migrate to testing as soon as seems reasonable > from the release team point of view. Ditto for cdebconf, but I can file > a separate request for that, as is customary for unblock requests. unblocked bot

Re: Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

K from their > > side. > > Yes, please don't rush it into testing. > > I'm currently debugging a regression from bullseye that's seen with > the combination of updated udebs from both cdebconf and gtk+2.0. After > a few attempts, I'd say that's an issue with cdebconf, but I'd

Bug#474286: marked as done (cdebconf-gtk-udeb: segfaults after SIGTERM during reboot)

Your message dated Sat, 22 May 2021 06:59:24 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#474286: cdebconf-gtk-udeb: segfaults after SIGTERM during reboot has caused the Debian Bug report #474286, regarding cdebconf-gtk-udeb: segfaults after SIGTERM during reboot to be marked as done

Bug#745361: marked as done (cdebconf-gtk-udeb: fails to advertise "rescue mode" on start-up)

Your message dated Sat, 22 May 2021 06:53:17 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#745361: cdebconf-gtk-udeb: fails to advertise "rescue mode" on start-up has caused the Debian Bug report #745361, regarding cdebconf-gtk-udeb: fails to advertise "rescue mode" on s

Bug#696970: marked as done (cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Add support for an alternate logo in the banner)

Your message dated Sat, 22 May 2021 06:50:48 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#696970: cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Add support for an alternate logo in the banner has caused the Debian Bug report #696970, regarding cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Add support for an alternate logo in the banner

Re: Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

Hi, Paul Gevers (2021-05-20): > On 19-05-2021 21:54, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Please unblock package gtk+2.0 > > Ok from my side. As this upload is to fix the d-i issue I'm pretty sure > that debian-boot is also fine, but I promised kibi this morning that > I'll follow

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

look complicated to many people and somewhat dated to others. It works, though, and text mode installs on other Linux variants are similar.. A working GTK version tied into d-i is the next best: when things get tough or configurations are fairly non-standard, there's always the expert mode to help debu

Re: Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

Control: tags -1 confirmed d-i On 19-05-2021 21:54, Simon McVittie wrote: > Please unblock package gtk+2.0 Ok from my side. As this upload is to fix the d-i issue I'm pretty sure that debian-boot is also fine, but I promised kibi this morning that I'll follow the process and wait for an expli

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

On 5/20/21 12:54 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Even if was decided to recommend that new users use live media for > installations, the flexibility of d-i is massively powerful, and we > shouldn't give up on it. The ability to support everything from a > serial terminal up to a graphical installer on

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

On 5/20/2021 12:54 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:27:56AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Simon McVittie (2021-05-17): Even if was decided to recommend that new users use live media for installations, the flexibility of d-i is massively powerful, and we shouldn't give up

Bug#988787: marked as done (cdebconf-gtk-udeb: should give GTK a chance to do layout before adding lots of text)

Your message dated Thu, 20 May 2021 05:33:25 + with message-id and subject line Bug#988787: fixed in cdebconf 0.258 has caused the Debian Bug report #988787, regarding cdebconf-gtk-udeb: should give GTK a chance to do layout before adding lots of text to be marked as done. This means

Bug#988589: marked as done (cdebconf-gtk: should capture GLib structured logging to syslog in d-i)

Your message dated Thu, 20 May 2021 05:33:25 + with message-id and subject line Bug#988589: fixed in cdebconf 0.258 has caused the Debian Bug report #988589, regarding cdebconf-gtk: should capture GLib structured logging to syslog in d-i to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#882804: marked as done (cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Missing rescue mode label at start-up)

Your message dated Thu, 20 May 2021 05:33:25 + with message-id and subject line Bug#882804: fixed in cdebconf 0.258 has caused the Debian Bug report #882804, regarding cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Missing rescue mode label at start-up to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

Steve McIntyre, le mer. 19 mai 2021 23:54:06 +0100, a ecrit: > We could quite readily improve some of the more difficult areas of > today's d-i by adding support for (say) Python 3 That would also open the path for the Orca screen reader, that some blind people would like to have :) Samuel

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:27:56AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >Simon McVittie (2021-05-17): > >> I also think the beginning of Debian 12 would be a good time to >> reconsider whether the graphical d-i mode is really the best way for >> non-expert users to install Debian. The restricted

Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gtk-gn...@lists.debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org Please unblock package gtk+2.0 [ Reason ] Fix the graphical installer [ Impact ] * For the patch

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

Simon McVittie (2021-05-17): > My biggest concern about cdebconf and GTK 3 is that it's relying on the > ability to call into GTK APIs from more than one thread. GTK 2 tried to > support this pattern, with gdk_threads_enter() and gdk_threads_leave() > providing locking, but i

Re: moving graphical installer to GTK 3

On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 17:48:45 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > I've checked what would > happen with GTK 3 in cdebconf and cdebconf-gtk-terminal (I had forgotten > about cdebconf-gtk-entropy until writing this reply). I think it's much too late in the Debian 11 cycle to be doing this f

Bug#947085: cdebconf: Please omit cdebconf-{gtk,newt}-udeb on Ubuntu/i386

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 03:24:22PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 12:11:44 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > In Ubuntu, we are in the process of moving the i386 architecture to a > > compatibility-only layer on amd64. ... We would like to drop [some] udebs > Do I understand

Bug#947085: cdebconf: Please omit cdebconf-{gtk,newt}-udeb on Ubuntu/i386

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 12:11:44 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > In Ubuntu, we are in the process of moving the i386 architecture to a > compatibility-only layer on amd64. ... We would like to drop [some] udebs Do I understand correctly that Ubuntu now builds all packages with the noudeb

Bug#988589: cdebconf-gtk: should capture GLib structured logging to syslog in d-i

Package: cdebconf-gtk Version: 0.257 Severity: normal Tags: patch d-i If a library like Pango is using the structured logging API in GLib 2.50+, its logging messages are not caught by cdebconf-gtk's log handler. Patch attached, also available at <https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/cdebc

Bug#882804: cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Missing rescue mode label at start-up

Cyril Brulebois (2017-11-26): > The banner in the graphical installer doesn't get the “Rescue mode” > label at start-up. It seems the information message hasn't been received > yet when the first call to handle_exposed_banner (cdebconf gtk frontend) > happens, so one has to selec

Re: Bug#987947: unblock (pre-approval): gtk+3.0/3.24.24-4

Hi Simon, Simon McVittie (2021-05-02): > [ Risks ] > This is obviously an important key package that lots of things depend > on. Technically it also has a udeb, although I'm fairly sure d-i is > still using GTK 2 and so the udeb is not actually used for anything > yet. That's abs

Bug#987947: unblock (pre-approval): gtk+3.0/3.24.24-4

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gtk-gn...@lists.debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org I'd like to update gtk+3.0 in bullseye to pick up an assortment of fixes from upstream. Exactly *which* fixes

Re: instructions for building the non-free debian installation images with the latest gtk network installation for testing the latest espeakup changes

Am Montag, dem 05.04.2021 um 12:58 -0500 schrieb Nick Gawronski: > Hi, I have uncommented that setting and so if I were interested in > building the latest CD image with non-free firmware and having this > image after about 4 seconds automatically launch the talking installer > what files would

Re: instructions for building the non-free debian installation images with the latest gtk network installation for testing the latest espeakup changes

Hi, I have uncommented that setting and so if I were interested in building the latest CD image with non-free firmware and having this image after about 4 seconds automatically launch the talking installer what files would I change?  I am also interested in after the installer starts having it

Re: instructions for building the non-free debian installation images with the latest gtk network installation for testing the latest espeakup changes

Am Sonntag, dem 04.04.2021 um 16:19 -0500 schrieb Nick Gawronski: [..] > What would I need to do to build using > debian-cd the non-free network installer or include custom packages on > it? Not sure if that already helps you, but you can use the FORCE_FIRMWARE environment variable. Check out

instructions for building the non-free debian installation images with the latest gtk network installation for testing the latest espeakup changes

Hi, I was testing out the latest network gtk debian-installer build target and was wondering as searching the wiki does not provide any directions on how to build the non-free installer image for systems that require it.  I was wanting to test out the latest espeakup changes on a real system

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

rwise have been, but avoids needing a 1.5M shared libstdc++. vte > > exports a C ABI, and only uses C++ internally. > > This looks like a nice plan, thanks for the heads-up! This happened a while ago. However, since we're already in soft freeze, a GTK 3 port of the graphical installer inte

rootskel-gtk uploads

Hi Jonathan, I just noticed that the latest 2 uploads of rootskel-gtk - done by you - are lacking commits resp. tags in git (?). That's https://tracker.debian.org/news/1022142/accepted-rootskel-gtk-141-source-amd64-into-unstable/ from 01-2019 - no tag set and https://tracker.debian.org/news

Bug#927547: marked as done (Updating the rootskel-gtk Uploaders list)

Your message dated Sat, 19 Dec 2020 17:53:03 + with message-id and subject line Bug#927547: fixed in rootskel-gtk 1.42 has caused the Debian Bug report #927547, regarding Updating the rootskel-gtk Uploaders list to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt

Re: Switch gtk d-i to libinput (instead of evdev)?

On 12/12/2020 12:45, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 9:23 AM Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> Alper Nebi Yasak (2020-12-11): >>> Cyril: Shawn has filed a MR [1] on salsa to change arm64 cdrom gtk build >>> from/to using xserver-xorg-input-{evdev-&

Re: Switch gtk d-i to libinput (instead of evdev)?

pload > > > > > > Appreciate the quick response! I just rebuilt the installer with > > > libinput driver instead of evdev, and the cursor works now! \o/ > > > > Switching to libinput also fixes the same touchpad issue on two of my > > devices (one arm64, one a

Re: Switch gtk d-i to libinput (instead of evdev)?

m udeb was added just because libinput gained a dependency > >> on it.. I'll drop it from the next upload > > > > Appreciate the quick response! I just rebuilt the installer with > > libinput driver instead of evdev, and the cursor works now! \o/ > > Switching to li

Switch gtk d-i to libinput (instead of evdev)?

t; Appreciate the quick response! I just rebuilt the installer with > libinput driver instead of evdev, and the cursor works now! \o/ Switching to libinput also fixes the same touchpad issue on two of my devices (one arm64, one amd64). Thanks! Cyril: Shawn has filed a MR [1] on salsa to change ar

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Hi Simon, Simon McVittie (2020-09-03): > On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 21:27:47 +0100, Egmont Koblinger wrote: > > > We don't do c++ in d-i. > > > > Unfortunately this sounds really problematic. As of version 0.42 vte > > has been using (more and more) C++. This is not like Ubuntu's PCRE2 > > hack

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 21:27:47 +0100, Egmont Koblinger wrote: > > We don't do c++ in d-i. > > Unfortunately this sounds really problematic. As of version 0.42 vte > has been using (more and more) C++. This is not like Ubuntu's PCRE2 > hack which is a matter of a few hours of work reverting and

Bug#909294: marked as done (buster base installing reportbug-gtk, therefore pulling in loads of X/GTK libraries)

Your message dated Fri, 21 Aug 2020 04:58:02 +0200 with message-id <20200821045802.07acb7c9ded347064600d...@mailbox.org> and subject line Re: Mass-closing old installation-report bugs --- round 5 has caused the Debian Bug report #909294, regarding buster base installing reportbug-gtk, the

Bug#606110: marked as done (installation-report: gtk installer fail to start with PXE boot of Dell Latitude D505)

Your message dated Fri, 7 Aug 2020 23:44:04 +0200 with message-id <20200807234404.35e377ed8bc47c218bcf5...@mailbox.org> and subject line Re: Mass-closing old installation-report bugs --- round 4 has caused the Debian Bug report #606110, regarding installation-report: gtk installer fail to

Bug#967287: cdebconf-entropy: depends on deprecated GTK 2

Source: cdebconf-entropy Severity: normal User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: gtk2 oldlibs Control: block 947713 by -1 This package has Build-Depends on GTK 2 (libgtk2.0-dev), or produces binary packages with a Depends on GTK 2. GTK 2 was superseded by GTK 3 in 2011

Processed: cdebconf-terminal: depends on deprecated GTK 2

Processing control commands: > block 947713 by -1 Bug #947713 [libgtk2.0-0] libgtk2.0-0: is deprecated and mostly unmaintained 947713 was blocked by: 967264 967276 967260 967246 967254 967250 967251 967255 967263 967259 967261 967265 967253 967269 967248 967278 885135 967286 967267 967262

Processed: cdebconf-entropy: depends on deprecated GTK 2

Processing control commands: > block 947713 by -1 Bug #947713 [libgtk2.0-0] libgtk2.0-0: is deprecated and mostly unmaintained 947713 was blocked by: 967254 967255 967247 967276 967249 967280 967261 967248 967274 967275 967262 967256 967257 959090 967245 967263 967244 967250 959083 967284

Bug#967288: cdebconf-terminal: depends on deprecated GTK 2

Source: cdebconf-terminal Severity: normal User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: gtk2 oldlibs Control: block 947713 by -1 This package has Build-Depends on GTK 2 (libgtk2.0-dev), or produces binary packages with a Depends on GTK 2. GTK 2 was superseded by GTK 3 in 2011

Bug#967286: cdebconf: depends on deprecated GTK 2

Source: cdebconf Severity: normal User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: gtk2 oldlibs Control: block 947713 by -1 This package has Build-Depends on GTK 2 (libgtk2.0-dev), or produces binary packages with a Depends on GTK 2. GTK 2 was superseded by GTK 3 in 2011 (see <ht

Processed: cdebconf: depends on deprecated GTK 2

Processing control commands: > block 947713 by -1 Bug #947713 [libgtk2.0-0] libgtk2.0-0: is deprecated and mostly unmaintained 947713 was blocked by: 967244 967273 967250 967268 967260 967281 967258 967277 967242 967285 967265 967269 967243 967274 967255 959083 967259 967272 967280 967256

Bug#961590: Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds

W dniu 26.05.2020 o 20:33, Alper Nebi Yasak pisze: > Control: retitle -1 Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds >> And that's plain wrong. >> >> I want to run D-I on my monitor. Nevermind is it text mode one or gtk >> one. My board does not require seria

Processed: Bug#961590: Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds

m modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds Bug #961590 [debian-installer] d-i: add 'panfrost' to 'fb-modules' so graphical installer can be used Changed Bug title to 'Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds' from 'd-i: add 'panfrost' to 'fb-modules' so graphical installer can be used'. >

Bug#961590: Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds

Control: reassign -1 debian-installer Control: severity -1 normal Control: retitle -1 Include drm modules in non-gtk arm64 cdrom initrds Control: tag -1 patch On 26/05/2020 20:40, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: There are two initrds in that iso, 'install.a64/initrd.gz' doesn't have drm modules

Bug#947085: cdebconf: Please omit cdebconf-{gtk,newt}-udeb on Ubuntu/i386

because it is required by base-passwd, but cdebconf-{gtk,newt}-udeb are built from this source package and depend on packages we otherwise have no reason to keep around (rootskel-gtk, di-utils-terminfo). We would like to drop these udebs rather than keeping them around in the Ubuntu archive

Re: Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

Hi Geert, Thanks for getting back to me and for the link, but I was hoping that I could simply place the existing deb file in debian-installer/installer/build/localudebs and then re-build the gtk mini.iso. Just so that you will know, for this experiment I want to include the Virtualbox 6

Re: Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:45:47AM -0400, Lonnie Cumberland wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been working with the Debian-Installer now and it compiles the GTK > mini.iso just fine with default settings. > > To add more packages it seems that I need to add a repository and

Re: Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

Hi All, I have been working with the Debian-Installer now and it compiles the GTK mini.iso just fine with default settings. To add more packages it seems that I need to add a repository and then try to add the package, but in my case, I have downloaded the debian deb package and would like

Re: Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

> Sorry, that I am still a bit new to the Debian Installer but am starting to > see how it comes together in my first build effort of the mini-gtk ISO. > I want to explore how the Installer script works as well. Yes, such explorations did me discover a lot of d-i. > Thanks again and have a great night, > Lonnie Yes, it is night in my time-zone. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven

Re: Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

, I have read that deb packages are basically deb packaged but which have been stripped down to take out things like man pages, etc.. Sorry, that I am still a bit new to the Debian Installer but am starting to see how it comes together in my first build effort of the mini-gtk ISO. I want to explore

Re: Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:51:00PM -0400, Lonnie Cumberland wrote: > Hello All, > > First, let me say that I really like what I have seen in Debian, after > being a Ubuntu user for many years. I was driving to dig into Debian more > when I got to the point that I wanted to build t

Adding packages to mini-gtk iso

Hello All, First, let me say that I really like what I have seen in Debian, after being a Ubuntu user for many years. I was driving to dig into Debian more when I got to the point that I wanted to build the gtk mini.iso as an ultra slim distro with xorg installed (only about 75 MB) which

Bug#932414: KDE GTK settings conflict with GTK settings of XFCE4

Package: task-kde-desktop Version: 3.53 When I set up KDE's appearance, it creates a file in my $HOME called .gtkrc-2.0 and a symlink .gtkrc-2.0-kde4 -> /home/me/.gtkrc-2.0. I think it creates that file because I set the theme to GTK. However, when I switch from KDE to XFCE, that f

Bug#927547: Updating the rootskel-gtk Uploaders list

Source: rootskel-gtk Version: 1.37 1.40 1.41 Severity: minor User: m...@qa.debian.org Usertags: mia-teammaint Christian Perrier has retired, so can't work on the rootskel-gtk package anymore (at least with this address). We are tracking their status in the MIA team and would like to ask you

Processed: Re: Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 887649 buster-ignore Bug #887649 [cdebconf-gtk-terminal] cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte Added tag(s) buster-ignore. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. --

Bug#704162: marked as done (Wrong sum for GTK installer initrd.gz inside netboot.tar.gz)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Jan 2019 23:01:42 +0100 with message-id <20190111230142.978c28021d129817d4392...@mailbox.org> and subject line Wrong sum for GTK installer initrd.gz inside netboot.tar.gz has caused the Debian Bug report #704162, regarding Wrong sum for GTK installer initrd.gz

Wrong sum for GTK installer initrd.gz inside netboot.tar.gz

Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Cyril Brulebois [2014-03-03 01:40]: > > > There must be a small packaging bug somewhere… > > > > The timestamp issue was indeed a nice clue. gzip has -n to avoid storing > > such information, improving build reproducibility: > > I shall note pigz needs has -n and

Bug#909294: buster base installing reportbug-gtk, therefore pulling in loads of X/GTK libraries

] Install tasks: [O] Install boot loader:[O] Overall install:[O] Comments/Problems: All seemed to go quite well. However, post install I noticed many, many GTK+X libraries. I chose 'standard system utilities' and 'ssh' only during debconf. After a bit of examination, I

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Hi guys, > We don't do c++ in d-i. Unfortunately this sounds really problematic. As of version 0.42 vte has been using (more and more) C++. This is not like Ubuntu's PCRE2 hack which is a matter of a few hours of work reverting and merging a few commits. It's reasonably impossible to revert to

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:24:35 +0100 Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Getting back to src:vte2.91 though, that's not sufficient, as the > resulting udeb depends (right now or after a rebuild against a patched > pcre2) on libstdc++6. We don't do c++ in d-i. That's going to be hard:

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:11:36 -0500 Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Control: block -1 by 887674 > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a > >few issues already, but I don't

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

nutls28? > objdump -x /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libvte-2.91.so.0.5000.2 | grep NEEDED > lists > > NEEDED libgnutls.so.30 > nvm... CONFFLAGS_udeb = \ --disable-gtk-doc \ --without-gnutls -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent li

Processed: Re: Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

e tags previously set > tag 887649 - patch Bug #887649 [cdebconf-gtk-terminal] cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte Removed tag(s) patch. -- 887649: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887649 887674: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887674 D

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Control: severity 887674 important Control: tag 887674 patch Control: tag 887649 - patch Cyril Brulebois (2018-01-19): > Control: severity -1 887674 > Control: tag -1 patch Wow, that was incredibly stupid, sorry. (Blaming this on headache.) > No need to have a serious bug

Processed: Re: Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

of bug #887674 to the same tags previously set > tag 887649 - patch Bug #887649 [cdebconf-gtk-terminal] cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #887649 to the same tags previously set -- 887649: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepor

Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Processing control commands: > severity -1 887674 Severity level `887674' is not known. Recognized are: critical, grave, serious, important, normal, minor, wishlist, fixed. > tag -1 patch Bug #887649 [cdebconf-gtk-terminal] cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Control: severity -1 887674 Control: tag -1 patch Hi, Jeremy Bicha (2018-01-18): > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a > >few issues already, but I don't tend

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Control: block -1 by 887674 On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a >few issues already, but I don't tend to do so in a timely fashion >since it's not used yet. Right now,

Processed: Re: Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Processing control commands: > block -1 by 887674 Bug #887649 [cdebconf-gtk-terminal] cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte 887649 was not blocked by any bugs. 887649 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 887649: 887674 -- 887649: https://bugs.debian.

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Hi, Jeremy Bicha <jbi...@debian.org> (2018-01-18): > Package: cdebconf-gtk-terminal > Version: 0.31 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid buster > User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > Usertags: oldlibs vte > > cdebconf-gtk-terminal Depends and Build-Depen

Bug#887649: cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Please don't depend on unmaintained vte

Package: cdebconf-gtk-terminal Version: 0.31 Severity: serious Tags: sid buster User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: oldlibs vte cdebconf-gtk-terminal Depends and Build-Depends on vte. In fact, it's now the only package keeping vte in Debian Testing. The Debian GNOME team

Bug#882804: cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Missing rescue mode label at start-up

Package: cdebconf-gtk-udeb Version: 0.227 Severity: important Hi, The banner in the graphical installer doesn't get the “Rescue mode” label at start-up. It seems the information message hasn't been received yet when the first call to handle_exposed_banner (cdebconf gtk frontend) happens, so one

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >