Bug#1118645: marked as done (cinnamon: please add Depends: gir1.2-clutter-1.0)
Your message dated Thu, 23 Oct 2025 08:04:51 -0400
with message-id <CAAajCMbMKNUQjfwxwcfzy5U_GXTUS65sHzU04HSfH+pBEMPssg@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#1118645: cinnamon: please add Depends: gir1.2-clutter-1.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #1118645,
regarding cinnamon: please add Depends: gir1.2-clutter-1.0
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1118645: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1118645
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: cinnamon
Version: 6.4.13-1
Severity: serious
Tags: forky sid
X-Debbugs-CC: smcv@debian.org
Please add Depends: gir1.2-clutter-1.0 since it's required by
cinnamon. Cinnamon uses Clutter a lot via GObject Introspection via
cjs. The only thing that was keeping clutter-1.0 in Debian Testing was
caribou, which cinnamon already was depending on and cinnamon is a key
package.
However, cinnamon will stop using caribou "soon". See
https://bugs.debian.org/1041646
Thank you,
Jeremy Bícha
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 8:01 AM Fabio Fantoni <fantonifabio@tiscali.it> wrote:
> I assume it only uses muffin clutter but to be absolutely sure should
> try without external clutter, which is not possible in a fast way even
> with the next version in development since it is still used in screensavers.
I think this is good enough so I'm closing the bug. I assume it should
be relatively simple to fix cinnamon using muffin's clutter if it
wasn't already once caribou is no longer used.
Thank you,
Jeremy Bícha
--- End Message ---
Reply to: