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

Re: Cinnamon 4.8 in experimental



Il 05/12/2020 13:14, Norbert Preining ha scritto:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> thanks for testing.
>
>> First test upgrading existing installation is ok, no issue found.
> Good. Did you do run time / usage tests, too?
Yes also a short usage.
>
>> Now I did a new Sid vm (clean install of testing, only base packages and
>> after upgrade to unstable) and tried to install directly cinnamon 4.8
>> from experimental but I have strange issue, tried "apt -t experimental
>> install task-cinnamon-desktop" but failed for unable to solved
>> dipendencies, tried "apt -t experimental install
>> cinnamon-desktop-environment" and same, also trying with aptitude but is
>> unable to resolve the issue. In theory (FWIR) it should get the packages
>> from experimental and all the others it can't find from unstable, or I
>> remember wrong?
> Hmmmm, there might be other factors.
> 	-t experimental
> prefers experimental, that means it might pull in new packages that
> conflict with others. Without the actual output from apt I cannot really
> say much.
>
> My opinion is: if functionality tests work, we can upload to unstable,
> and work from there to fix updates from stable/testing. Only if
> functionality is broken to a large degree, we should refrain.
wait for unstable, I saw many archs that is failed with experimental,
from upstream cinnamon I saw some fixes for meson build (too recently
merged and too few tests), for example
https://github.com/linuxmint/cinnamon/commit/e9f35d270fab316ebc028f396f6c8a8f51de53c3
that fixes build without network manager (and don't seems optional (add
nm if found) like before meson so a conditional switch should be added
in debian/rules for archs without nm)
>
> Best
>
> Norbert
>
> --
> PREINING Norbert                              https://www.preining.info
> Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
> GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
>


Reply to: