Re: Is mesa actually maintained?
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:25:17AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:26:33AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Hello! This is one of 5 RC bugs, apparently with no maintainer response.
> > Apparently the list which is listed as the maintainer is rejecting messages
> > (336752), which probably contributes to the problem. Hence the Cc: to
> > debian-devel.
> > This bug is trivial to fix, and because it prevents mesa from building, it's
> > preventing tulip from being built at all. 341479 prevents tulip from being
> > built too.
> > I only noticed this because I'm trying to get the C++ allocator transition
> > finished, which tulip is involved in.
> > So, um, any chance of any progress?
> Marcelo has pretty much vanished lately, so I'm going to be doing an NMU of
> mesa soon to bring it up to the point where it can be used for Xorg 7.0.
> Once that's done, I can start to look at the buglist. I'm not really all
> that thrilled about the possibility of becoming the mesa maintainer, but
> right now it looks like my only option if I want to move on modular xorg.
I've got an NMU prepared and sitting in the XSF svn repo. Almost all the
work was done by Daniel Stone, so I mainly had to add the appropriate bug
closers in the changelog.
This NMU will depend on a new version of libdrm. I've uploaded the libdrm
NMU as well, but because it involves an soname change it's sitting in NEW
right now, waiting. This mesa NMU will also have to wait in NEW as well,
because it involves various package name changes that were discussed
between Daniel, Marcello, and Michel Dänzer. But things are ready to go and
this will clear out the vast majority of the bugs filed against the
- David Nusinow