[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [directfb-dev] [g-i]GTK 2.8.18 with directfb support packages [was:Re: [g-i] Graphical installer and PPC systems]

Just to throw my two cents in. It's my understanding that the official packages
upped the Directfb build to 0.9.24 which is fine for testing.

If your comfortable using newer versions to see if problems have been
fixed feel free but it was just a suggestion.

Since the directfb/gdk/cairo software is still under heavy development
understanding the state of the latest software by periodically testing
cvs builds is not a bad thing if done by someone who could quickly do
the builds and produce the images. If there are useful improvements
fixes can be backported.

I just wanted to clarify my position so its not lost in all the other issues.


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.

> > 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
On making an udeb you would not know how to use and test?

> 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
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 don't consider it my responasbility to fix those images, as
> I have said some time ago,
> I just have time for testing.

What do you expect then?
You write on d-boot "hey, g-I is fucked on ppc" as you did with Cyrillic
And then you expect within a couple of hours to find a hundred messages
on your
Mailbox asking for details or providing a fix?
Why don't you just try to provide proper reports so that the problems
can be fixed?
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
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.

> 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.

> > 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.
I think the gnome team have all the skills needed to package
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.


Reply to: