On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:50:31PM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote: > 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. following the wiki or using the build script committed in extremadura you should be able to build any of the g-i libs and that is what Sven, Attilio and myself did. Packaging the libraries, requires alot more; I just got the impression you are not confident with none of those (and I really do not mean to offend you anyhow by saying that) > 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 think it was not appropriate to involve two MLs and Dave to sort out your doubt: cairo has been successfully used to produce working images and that is enough to say it is working. > > >> 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. > you reported the pb in [1] and the very same day I replied asking for infos you did not provide until the IRC discussion when you unfairly accused Colin. I asked you again to provide the infos and within 12 hours Colin merged ppc stuff from Frans' branch into trunk. You said the problem was still present [2] (and I had to ask you the very same questions again [3]), and at the end it was you using the wrong image. That did piss me off even more and I think such failure reports are all but useful. > Are you sure[2]? right, my fault (i'm sure some posts you bamed it on that patch though) > >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? it's crystal clear. reporting problems the way you did, especially when many ppl are on different arches, does not help at all IMO, but go on that way if you think I'm wrong. > 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. that's your own way of reading my message. I think you did wrong and I told you the reason why I think so without hiding anything; feel free to do whatever you want the way you want. D. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00906.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg01290.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00048.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature