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

Re: Not very happy with new directfb upload


On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:42:31 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 31 July 2006 03:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > He did request approval for this transition on debian-release earlier
> > in the month, and there were no objections raised:
> > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/07/msg00147.html>
> /me kicks himself for missing the implications of that mail (remembering 
> now that he did see it at the time)
> Guillem: my apologies for thinking you had done this without checking with 
> anyone.

No problem. Anyway I'm sorry for the delay, as I left for 4 days or so
and was expecting to have net access. Also I asked for the transition
taking into account d-i, but missed the fact that libcairo was used by
it, and thought that the whole g-i was using the old forked 0.9.22. This
raises the issue that the libcairo udeb probably should not be using the
latest one in sid (until g-i moves back to it), or g-i will end up
linking against two different directfb versions.

> > The binNMUs have all been scheduled now, but the biggest problem looks
> > like it will be that this version of directfb has FTBFS on powerpc. 
> > Guillem, do you know about this?

> Yes, just noticed that too. Hope this can be resolved soon as that will 
> block progress on the d-i release.

Yes I noticed that just before leaving and was expecting to sort it
out sooner. I also told that to Steve on #debian-release on the 27th.
I've uploaded now fixed packages with medium urgency.


Reply to: