Could you drop the .planner file there as well? Lots of fun data in the original that doesn't get exported to html... Cheers, C.J. On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 11:45 +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > I'm just a little happy right now - I've just built and uploaded the > last dependency for GPE in Emdebian. > > http://pkg-gpe.alioth.debian.org/status.php > > See also: http://www.emdebian.org/emdebian/helpout.php and > http://www.emdebian.org/emdebian/todo.html after the overnight update. > > 1,736 Emdebian packages for ARM (a lot of those are -locale- packages > and quite a few -dev). I'll be working on langupdate later and trimming > out the -locale- packages to see if the Emdebian TDeb test > implementation is workable. > > The only GPE app causing any trouble is gpe-filemanager because of a > dependency on libgnome-vfs-2.0-0 which depends on > gconf->ldap->libsasl2-2 and libsasl wants to bring in libdb4.4. > Familiar/OE don't use gconf with ldap so there is a fix needed. So we > have matchbox, gtk, nearly all GPE currently in Debian and edos-debcheck > says that all the packages are installable. > > I've got some more GPE packages to sort out in Debian too - the current > ITP's need to be closed and a few more opened and also closed: > gpe-terminal, gpe-tetris, gpe-calculator, gpe-login and possibly gpe-today. > > Question is now - can I get them to actually create a GPE rootfs and run > ????? > ;-) > > The main point, though, is that there are now sufficient libraries built > for Emdebian that an Emdebian GUI is certainly possible. > > Please test and let me know if any of the changes cause problems with > the configuration or if any libraries etc. are actually still missing. > > Also, any ideas on fixing the remaining blocks in gconf, liborbit2 and > whether we should build with ldap, let me know. > > The packages built very well - no huge delays, no huge surprises or > problems. Just the usual mix of --cache-file, --disable-foo, adding the > cross-depends support with $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) etc. and persuading some > of the larger packages that I really, really, REALLY did NOT want the > manpages. Quite annoying how persistent some Debian packages are about > manpages. The only long term solution is for dpkg to drop them from the > call to dpkg-deb because there are so many ways that manpages can make > it into the package. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part