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

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

Hi Holger,

On 10-04-2021 18:14, Holger Wansing wrote:
>>> 2. A problem came up during freeze regarding input methods for several 
>>>    languages:
>>>    Starting with bullseye, GNOME depends on ibus, which is not fully
>>>    compatible with the view of some language teams, who would like to
>>>    prefer fcitx. 
>>>    The best way to get this situation fixed would require some new
>>>    binary packages to be added to Bullseye (would only be tasks packages,
>>>    so no new code/functions to be added!).
>>>    A thread regarding this started at
>>> 	https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2021/03/msg00058.html
>>>    and the release-team was also added to the loop at some point.
>>>    Maybe release-team could look into this too, and try to make a 
>>>    decision?
>> Did you conclude in that thread what the optimal option would be from
>> your side? And what's the preferred option without new packages?
> That's not just my opinion, but sort of consensus of the involved people.
> Going through the above mentioned thread shows that.
> There are also alternatives mentioned, but they all have their disadvantages,
> that's why the consensus.

We had a bit of discussion on this and if you think with these addition
(meta) packages we can fix this problem, let's have them. Please prepare
and upload. We'll notify ftp-masters that this upload to NEW is meant
for bullseye. Ideally of course, you'd be able to test in unstable that
the solution actually works before we accept them in testing. Is that

Side note, on our check list [1], there's also a note on asking you if
the install guide is up-to-date. Can you confirm that?



Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: