On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:25:31AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I'll upload the fixed iceape to unstable once I've completed the remaining
> > testbuilds of openoffice.org, cacao-oj6, eclipse and openjdk-6.
>
> Could you send a patch against git://git.debian.org/pkg-mozilla/iceape.git,
> too ?
>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:49:59PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:25:39AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:51:07PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > > Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibl
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:25:39AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:51:07PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibly a .a provided in
> > > > the -dev-bin package. There shouldn't be anything
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:51:07PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibly a .a provided in
> > > the -dev-bin package. There shouldn't be anything needing iceape-browser
> > > files, but that's only an assumption. T
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:51:07PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibly a .a provided in
> > > the -dev-bin package. There shouldn't be anything needing iceape-browser
> > > files, but that's only an assumption. T
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibly a .a provided in
> > the -dev-bin package. There shouldn't be anything needing iceape-browser
> > files, but that's only an assumption. That's why I asked to check
> > whether they build without iceape-browser ins
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 02:34:51PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 02:30:32PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:29:36AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:29:36AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:47:18PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > Two approaches to resolve this have been
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 02:30:32PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:29:36AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:47:18PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009,
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:47:18PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > Two approaches to resolve this have been proposed:
> >
> > As far as I know, there should be patches in Ubu
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:47:18PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Two approaches to resolve this have been proposed:
>
> As far as I know, there should be patches in Ubuntu to build some of
> the packages you listed against xulrunner 1.9; I guess
Hi,
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > Anyway, I can try to build OOo 2.4.1 using libxul...
> >
> > That (with a build-dep fix) works. (But I of course won't upload that
> > unless it 's decided that we *will* do the transition for lenny now...)
>
> Let's wait on a comment f
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Anyway, I can try to build OOo 2.4.1 using libxul...
>
> That (with a build-dep fix) works. (But I of course won't upload that
> unless it 's decided that we *will* do the transition for lenny now...)
Let's wait on a comment from Alexander Sack on the feasibility
of movi
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Anyway, I can try to build OOo 2.4.1 using libxul...
That (with a build-dep fix) works. (But I of course won't upload that
unless it 's decided that we *will* do the transition for lenny now...)
Regards,
Rene
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.d
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:51:09AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > The problem of dropping Iceape is that it provides a Xulrunner -dev package,
> > iceape-dev, based on Xulrunner 1.8, while Xulrunner in Lenny (the one that
>
> uhm, wasn't the rationale for usi
Hi,
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> The problem of dropping Iceape is that it provides a Xulrunner -dev package,
> iceape-dev, based on Xulrunner 1.8, while Xulrunner in Lenny (the one that
uhm, wasn't the rationale for using iceape-dev the xulrunner 1.9 transition?
E.g. http://lists.debian.org/debia
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> 2. Dropping all binary packages from Iceape except the iceape-dev package.
>This option has the downside that there would still be the need for
> updates,
>but they would only be made on a best effort basis, since they're less
>severe (the respective compon
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Two approaches to resolve this have been proposed:
As far as I know, there should be patches in Ubuntu to build some of
the packages you listed against xulrunner 1.9; I guess that would be
the best solution. I'm not sure icedove / xulrunner 1.
Package: iceape
Severity: serious
The Debian Mozilla maintainers don't have the resources to support Iceape
over the timeframe of Lenny security support. Other people have been asked
on debian-devel to help out, but with no effect.
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=505565#10)
The
19 matches
Mail list logo
