Le 15/06/2017 à 17:52, Steve Litt a écrit :
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:39:32 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
No chance of getting things like this reduced from "depends" to
"recommends", I suppose?
I asked the maintainer if he could do that,
Such dependencies are hardly surprising when one considers that Debian
has been a GNOME shop since GNOME's beginning. At the time GNOME was an
official GNU project, as I recall, and Debian was very close to being a
GNU project as well in 1998. GNOME, of course, coming into being due to
the then G
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:39:32 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
> > No chance of getting things like this reduced from "depends" to
> > "recommends", I suppose?
> >
>
> I asked the maintainer if he could do that, and he gently explained me
> t
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
[cut]
>
> > Just to make an example, it is still very hard for me to understand
> > why a packge like grace (which is a lesstif program to produce X-Y
> > plots) should depend on gconf2. The motivation provided by the
> > maintainer i
On Thursday 15 June 2017 12:23:26 KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:40:32PM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
>
> > How does this work out on a Debian system when you select a different DE,
> > then?
>
> You still get gconf, gnome-keyring, and other goodies installed, even
> if you are using x
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:40:32PM +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
[cut]
> >
> > In most of the cases those dependencies do not come from upstream, and
> > have been instead introduced by Debian packagers, who have made a lot
> > of effort to entangle as tightly as possible hundreds of packges with
>
On Thursday 15 June 2017 11:18:29 KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:02:02PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> >
> > gconf2 is not installed but gconf-service, gconf2-common and libgconf-2-4
> > are.
> >
> > Are they really needed? Trying to remove any of them causes
> > emacs24/emacs25 to
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:02:02PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 11:16 +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > So please, if you are using ascii with any
> > Desktop Environment, could you please hel testing those packages and
> > report any problem, so that we can move th
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 11:16 +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So please, if you are using ascii with any
> Desktop Environment, could you please hel testing those packages and
> report any problem, so that we can move them to the main ascii repo
> asap?
I've been trying out mate-session, wmaker
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:59:45PM +0200, Massimiliano Baldinelli wrote:
[cut]
>
> I booted today with the updated dbus (1.10.18-1+devuan2.2) and all is
> working until now.
>
> Desktop is MATE 1.16.2, no login manager as I still use startx.
>
> I also made a (very quick) test on a VM with ASC
On 06/14/2017 09:06 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
Hi Max,
kernel version could be irrelevant, but which desktop manager you are
using should not be so.
I booted today with the updated dbus (1.10.18-1+devuan2.2) and all is
working until now.
Desktop is MATE 1.16.2, no login manager as I still use star
On 13/06/2017 02:39 μμ, KatolaZ wrote:
It would be great if somebody (better if "many-body" :P) could confirm
whether an upgrade from the current ascii version to those packages is
flawless or not.
Upgrade works without problems here (ASCII, kde, lightdm) :)
__
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:22:20PM +0200, Massimiliano Baldinelli wrote:
> On 2017-06-13 11:39, KatolaZ wrote:
>
> >It would be great if somebody (better if "many-body" :P) could confirm
> >whether an upgrade from the current ascii version to those packages is
> >flawless or not.
>
> Ciao KatolaZ
On 2017-06-13 11:39, KatolaZ wrote:
It would be great if somebody (better if "many-body" :P) could confirm
whether an upgrade from the current ascii version to those packages is
flawless or not.
Ciao KatolaZ :)
Since I use testing I'm just installing it to give it a try. What system
info sho
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:10:37PM +0200, Irrwahn wrote:
[cut]
>
> I can tell no difference in any behavior, all dbus related functionality
> appears to work perfectly fine, no dependencies were broken during the
> change.
>
> Oh, and gconf2 (which was also already installed, version 3.2.6-4
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:16:41 +0100, Katolaz wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> we have just built updated dbus packages for ascii. They are still in
> experimental:
>
> deb http://packages.devuan.org/devuan/ experimental main
>
> and the current version number is 1.10.18-1+devuan2.2. This build
> should fix
Hi All,
we have just built updated dbus packages for ascii. They are still in
experimental:
deb http://packages.devuan.org/devuan/ experimental main
and the current version number is 1.10.18-1+devuan2.2. This build
should fix the following bugs:
http://bugs.devuan.org/95
http://bugs.devua
17 matches
Mail list logo
