On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:29:14 +0200, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:19:40 +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it's already quite penible to use experimental (to avoid to pull
>> every single experimental package, you have to edit your
>> /etc/apt/pr
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:19:40 +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's already quite penible to
>use experimental (to avoid to pull every single experimental package,
>you have to edit your /etc/apt/preferences,
Furthermore, /etc/apt/preferences doesn't allow wildcarded package
name
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
[...]
Perhaps you're right on your comments about X.org 7.0 not being tested
enough to avoid break, but perhpas few people cared about installing it
when it was in experimental.
Perhaps they are right on uploading packages to un
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> I have yet to file bugs against other packages that I've affected because I
> haven't had time. This is a serious problem, but I have hundreds of
> packages to actively look after during this transition and I'd appreciate
> any sort o
su, 2006-04-16 kello 22:25 +0200, Gabor Gombas kirjoitti:
> So, [- - -] what are _YOUR_ excuses for
> not testing the transition when it was still in experimental? And if you
> did not do that, what are you complaining about?
I like this attitude: you either help, or you shut up. Attacking people
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> Give me a break. For one single package, it's already quite penible to
> use experimental (to avoid to pull every single experimental package,
> you have to edit your /etc/apt/preferences, and stuff like that), it's
> not imagine
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> I'm complaining because *you* created the huge load of bugs you have
> to cope with, and a lot of other you don't warn other packagers about
> (what pissed me, and made me write my previous mail is yet-another-RC
> bug because of
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I'd like for you to back this claim up. So far I've fixed dozens of bugs
> > over the course of the past week at great personal an
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> As for the build-depends, pbuilder is, as far as I've been able to
> understand it, completely incapable of handling such a massive beast as
> this. You can't point it easily at a custom repository in
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> As for the build-depends, pbuilder is, as far as I've been able to
> understand it, completely incapable of handling such a massive beast as
> this. You can't point it easily at a custom repository in order to have it
> pull from ther
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:31:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm)
> - fonts transition was unanounced and users have either :
> * only non transitionned fonts if their xorg.conf was modified
> * only xorg ones if they use dex
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:31:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I welcome the fact that you bear your responsabilities, that's a quality
> fewer of us have. Though, the .la problem is not the sole one the
> modular Xorg raised.
>
> - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kd
Le Ven 14 Avril 2006 01:58, David Nusinow a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple
> > rebuild, this is a serious problem.
>
> I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:58:05 -0400, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the
>trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the
>release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand.
>N
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:25:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:58 -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple
> > > rebuild, this is a serious
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:58 -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple
> > rebuild, this is a serious problem.
>
> I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm s
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:12 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Please tell me if I have this right:
> > * You don't like .la files
>
> Yes.
>
> > * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> > (lib
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:58:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple
> > rebuild, this is a serious problem.
>
> I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 11:12 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Please tell me if I have this right:
> * You don't like .la files
> * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> (libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
> th
Greetings,
Please tell me if I have this right:
* You don't like .la files
* So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
(libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
them
* Even though they're a years-old and very well established
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple
> rebuild, this is a serious problem.
I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the
trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files
signature.asc
Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:52:52PM +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
> I experienced the issue while recompiling some gnome packages. Is sed
> "s##/usr/lib/libXrender.la ##g" (in the .la references, ie
> libgdk-x11-2.0.la) the "best" temporary solution by now?
s##/usr/lib/libXrender.la##-lXrender##g, I
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:52:52PM +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
> I experienced the issue while recompiling some gnome packages. Is sed
> "s##/usr/lib/libXrender.la ##g" (in the .la references, ie
> libgdk-x11-2.0.la) the "best" temporary solution by now?
Anything uploaded this way will still fail
Il giorno gio, 13/04/2006 alle 19.12 +0300, Daniel Stone ha scritto:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Please tell me if I have this right:
> > * You don't like .la files
>
> Yes.
>
> > * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:12:48PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time
> spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt.
> I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random
> flamebait more th
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Please tell me if I have this right:
> * You don't like .la files
Yes.
> * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> (libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
> them
27 matches
Mail list logo
