On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 23:46 +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
- Uploading a mesa suitable for xorg 7.1 is a matter to be settled between
the XSF and the mesa maintainer.
There was some hope to upgrade to a fresher mesa than the one now in
experimental, but mesa 6.5.1_rc1
Steve Langasek wrote:
- Uploading a mesa suitable for xorg 7.1 is a matter to be settled between
the XSF and the mesa maintainer.
There was some hope to upgrade to a fresher mesa than the one now in
experimental, but mesa 6.5.1_rc1 was recently released and appears to
have introduced some
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The major question here has been how to handle binary non-free drivers that
haven't been updated yet for the 7.1 ABI change. Specifically, the nvidia
driver, which is presently packaged in non-free, hasn't been updated yet for
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
- x11proto-fixes, libxfixes, and the server and drivers all need to be
uploaded together; you're free to do this as soon as the IgnoreABI patch
is tested and mesa is sorted out. libxfixes has about 500
reverse-dependencies
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 01:25, Drew Parsons wrote:
We haven't mentioned the input drivers yet. Most of them still need to
be upgraded (all minor upgrades) and are not yet in experimental. There
is no ABI change for them so they should work in both the 7.0 and 7.1.
FWIW, yesterday I had to
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 09:56, Drew Parsons wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 09:28 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 01:25, Drew Parsons wrote:
We haven't mentioned the input drivers yet. Most of them still need to
be upgraded (all minor upgrades) and are not yet in
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 09:28 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 01:25, Drew Parsons wrote:
We haven't mentioned the input drivers yet. Most of them still need to
be upgraded (all minor upgrades) and are not yet in experimental. There
is no ABI change for them so they should
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 10:57, Drew Parsons wrote:
Xavier, if you want to get back on to the new 7.1 system, then
xserver-xorg-core 2:1.1.1-4 is the version to go from.
I'd like to, but it looks like aptitude wants to suppress
xserver-xorg-video-all and hold all other xserver-* to unstable
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 10:14 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 09:56, Drew Parsons wrote:
Are you absolutely sure the -mouse driver crashed? Can you try mouse
1:1.1.1-2 while keeping ati at which ever version works?
xserver-xorg-core 2:1.0.2-10
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 11:07 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 10:57, Drew Parsons wrote:
Xavier, if you want to get back on to the new 7.1 system, then
xserver-xorg-core 2:1.1.1-4 is the version to go from.
I'd like to, but it looks like aptitude wants to suppress
* Steve Langasek [Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:00:25 -0700]:
- x11proto-fixes, libxfixes, and the server and drivers all need to be
uploaded together; you're free to do this as soon as the IgnoreABI patch
is tested and mesa is sorted out. libxfixes has about 500
reverse-dependencies in testing
David and I have had some useful discussions about this on IRC over the last
couple of days; let's recap here for those who haven't been around on
#debian-x.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:59:41PM +, David Nusinow wrote:
Some pieces of this are already in place. The various Xorg applications
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Clarification: the libxfixes change is a shlibs change, not an soname
change. (soversion normally refers to the numeric component of an soname;
apparently xorg upstream uses the term differently.)
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:33:44AM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Clarification: the libxfixes change is a shlibs change, not an soname
change. (soversion normally refers to the numeric component of an soname;
apparently xorg
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:08:35AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:33:44AM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Clarification: the libxfixes change is a shlibs change, not an soname
change. (soversion normally
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:05:51PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:08:35AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:33:44AM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Clarification: the libxfixes change
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:15:20AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:05:51PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
That the soversion, being the numeric component of the soname, changed
from 3.0.0 to 3.1.0?
The numeric component of the soname is 3.
Mea culpa.
signature.asc
Steve Langasek wrote:
but AFAICS libxfixes is tied to the server only by build-deps, which means
the server won't delay getting the libxfixes update into unstable.
More precisely, the server only depends on the fixes proto header, not
on libxfixes. The lib is only used by client code.
We
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 20:59 +, David Nusinow wrote:
This release of the X server features an internal ABI bump. As such,
we've had to rebuild all of the X video drivers. This task is now complete
and all of them are either in experimental or incoming.
Do
I wrote:
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 20:59 +, David Nusinow wrote:
Do the package dependencies reflect the fact that the new
xserver-xorg-core will break old drivers yet? One idea would be to
change the name of the virtual package xserver-xorg-video to
Dänzer wrote:
* Tighten dependencies between X11R7.1 server and video drivers.
xserver-xorg-core no longer Depends: xserver-xorg-video-all |
xserver-xorg-$but instead Conflicts: xserver-xorg-video. The dependency
on
xserver-xorg-video-all | xserver-xorg-video-1.0 is managed
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 20:59 +, David Nusinow wrote:
This release of the X server features an internal ABI bump. As such,
we've had to rebuild all of the X video drivers. This task is now complete
and all of them are either in experimental or incoming.
Do the package dependencies
Hi,
* David Nusinow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060817 03:00]:
Some pieces of this are already in place. The various Xorg applications
are all in unstable, as are the protocol headers.
Without looking deep into your mail, I want to ask you to withhold
uploads to unstable of packages which are:
1.
23 matches
Mail list logo
