Re: [directfb-dev] [g-i]GTK 2.8.18 with directfb support packages [was:Re: [g-i] Graphical installer and PPC systems]
On 6/20/06, Viti Davide <Davide.Viti@siemens.com> wrote:
> > why?
> > The Gnome team will support the D-I team in producing the
> > gtk+-directfb packages.
>
> I wanted to do so... and if I do it right, their work will be less.
I'm not sure they need help on packaging; I might be wrong but
I don't think the gtk is not ready because of technical problems.
my feeling on the #gnome-debian channel ws that they were busy with
other stuff ATM and nobody had time for this.
> > The library builds fine already (see [2] and [3]).
>
> The impression that the above messages left me is that the
> library used for the image was simply built from sources and
> added in the image via a tarball, not via a package. Am I not
> correct about this?
>
You are right, but why do you need a debian package to test the patch?
And again: have you tried to build a mini.iso based on the new set of
Libraries? Wouldn't it make sense to get confident with it before
concentrating
On making an udeb you would not know how to use and test?
Err, i thought your i386 tests made that. If I am doing the patching
against the source package, then you could test it on i386, too. Is
not like they are hacked udebs like Attilio was doing, so you can't
use it.
> Note: I feel much anger in your writing...
Yes, your message did piss me off very much indeed.
You would delay things by saying "i think nothing should be done until
this issue is clarified" because you have not clear how the libraries
work.
Note that it's perfectly ok having doubts, but before telling that in
name of
The d-I team to the package maintainer, you could discuss it on irc/ml
and make
Sure there are some problems. IMO it just confuses things.
I got no clear response on that matter from gtk/gnome people on the
debian channel, and also I have faced some issues that made me believe
that having two cairo.so files in two different places could be
problematic; indeed I might have been wrong by not carifying that I
was talking about _my_ effort.
> I don't consider it my responasbility to fix those images, as
> I have said some time ago,
> I just have time for testing.
Huh?
What do you expect then?
I said clearly I don't have time for hacking[1], just testing. I am
not the ppc porter, nor a helper porter and I don't have the knowledge
to claim any of those positions. Also, somebody else is the powerpc
porter, AFAIK.
You write on d-boot "hey, g-I is fucked on ppc" as you did with Cyrillic
fonts,
And then you expect within a couple of hours to find a hundred messages
on your
Mailbox asking for details or providing a fix?
Err, the problem was observed on the 18th of May, and I was expecting,
since then somebody to try to investigate and fix this since I clearly
said I couldn't do it. I have said something about this on the list on
the 30th of May.
I know the wiki.d.o/D-I/GUI is not BTS, but I have been told that it
would not be proper to add this issue to D-I/Today and since the
builds were not integrated, IIRC in trunk for PPC, I thought BTS was
not the proper place to report them. The dailies were not official,
thus BTS seemd wrong to me.
You lately reported that the crash on ppc happens because of the
touchpad fix, but you
Did not even try to revert the patch and see if that is the real
problem...
Are you sure[2]?
snipped from wiki.d.o:
[2006-06-14] ppc: the debconf interface crashes (the fix for [WWW]
#372773 is working here)
If that's your idea of testing things I'd say is not very effective and
as a consequence it
Takes a long time before problems get fixed.
What part of [1] didn't you understand?
> In spite of that I wanted to see gtk+2.0 packages prepared to
> build directfb packages, too and hoped (not blindly) that the
> colour issues will disappear.
The colour problem disappears: it's one of the first things we did
In Extremadura. Sven built the libraries and a test image and, apart
For a problem with some buttons (not used inside g-i), everything looks
Beautiful. I don't think you need a deb to see thet.
But the packages are needed nonetheless.
> > now what is needed is testing the packages produced by the official
> > maintainers and not
> > duplicating their work or delaying other people' work.
>
> Have they done this? Judging from what I know and seen in
> unstable, directfb gtk packages are still unsupported. Do
> such experimental packages exist?
No, it does not exist yet; cairo is a requirement. Unofficial cairo
Could be used, true, but we'll need it officially anyway.
That's what I am working on.
I think the gnome team have all the skills needed to package
gtk+-directfb,
No doubt, but the time is pressing us; if we want a G-I for etch every
day counts, even the energy spent now could have been spent a lot
better.
So IMO it's not a technical problem and of course you can try to do it
Yourself, but I don't know how useful that would be.
Dave announced the availablity of the cairo packages for quite a while
and I haven't seen any move from the gtk/gnome team. The most
important thing I learen in OSS is that you (yourself) are the best o
scratch your own itch. That's what I think I am doing here.
I hope your mail does not hide other feelings than your concern for
G-I, because I feel that I am not wanted to be doing G-I work.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00590.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=372773;msg=31
--
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
Reply to: