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, Davide Viti <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:50:31PM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
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)
On the contrary, I have trust in your, Attilio's and Sven's work. I
just want to take this to the next level. I don't think it helps a lot
if I do something which has been done before, does it ;-) ?
> 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.
Err, your are missing the point, you and everybody else used only one
library the cairo.so which is build against -directfb. I am not sure
that in the context of packaging gtk this is fesable because you have
to specify the library used for linking ( -lcairo ), and that is
provided for the single source package gtk+2.0 by two -dev packages
which both have such a library. What I am NOT sure (and that was one
of the points of my initial mail) is if this can be done for a package
depending on both.
> >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?
> Err, the problem was observed on the 18th of May, and I was expecting,
[cut, me saying wrongly that I have reported this the first time on the list on]
> the 30th of May.
you reported the pb in  and the very same day I replied asking for infos
Yes, you are right I didn't report it first time on the 30th, but
still since the 22nd until the 25th still there are not "a couple of
hours". Read further.
you did not provide until the IRC discussion when you unfairly accused Colin.
Get your act together, read  which was sent on the 23rd. I CC-ed
Colin on that in the hope I'll rasie his attention.
you asked if I could reproduce  and obviousely that was
reproducible since the fix came on the 26th.
I have done that  on the 25th and also provided some screenshots.
I asked you again to provide the infos and within 12 hours Colin merged ppc
stuff from Frans' branch into trunk.
On the 25th @ 21:06+3 when I said that Collin didn't cared about the
issue. He himself has acknowledged that he didn't looked at the
He moved the build to the trunk on the 26th @ 14:05+1
And he didn't provided an explicit link to the images nor did he
updated the links on the wiki. I am not acusing him, is just the
information was missing.
You said the problem was still present  (and I had to ask you the very same
At the second round of images when I actually tested a wrong (old)
image because of a wrongly setup cron job which couldn't overwrite a
file made by the root user. Indeed that was my mistake and I have said
that publicly. If I remember correctly I had dowloaded the wrong image
by hand because of this lack of info.
questions again ), 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.
Flashnews, nobody's perfect. I acknowldged that was my mistake. I hope
you don't have to near somebody digging up dirt from your past to pour
it in your head. Especially when you have acknowledged publicly you
Still I fail to see what does this have to do with my work on the gtk packages.
> Are you sure?
right, my fault (i'm sure some posts you bamed it on that patch though)
Can you backup that afirmation? taking into account the omissions
before I suspect your memory is cheating on you.
I don't remember saying anything about any patch. The touchpad issue
was reported by someone else while I had said that the G-I didn't
started on ppc suspecting some input problems because of the messages
I could see between the crashes.
> >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  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
A lot of hand waving... I said PPC, what does "diffrent arches" has
anything to do this?
go on that way if you think I'm wrong.
I have said I will try to test the images weekly. I expected somebody
else (maybe the officail porter) to do the actual fixing since I said
clearly this was not possible for me to do because of lack of time. In
the font issue it was only Colin who could fix this.
Me using a wrong image was an unfortunate incident in which neither of
the parts involved was to be fully blamable. As far as I know this in
not my ususal way of reporting, if not please contradict me and I will
step back from this because I don't want to be a burden on the people
doing the actual work.
> 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
Thanks for telling me (this is not irony at all).
feel free to do whatever you want the way you want.
I already did that, didn't I? And it seems you don't agree. Why? You
think that we should wait for the GNOME people to do thier work. I see
them busy with other things and I want to help them.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein