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

Re: My last (hopefully) bits for KDE in Squeeze



Hi Modestas,

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:25:34 +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> via unstable:
> 
> 1) kde (Depends: kde-full) and kde-core (Depends: kde-standard) transitional 
> metapackages in src:meta-kde. And yes, without preinst hack, only appropriate 
> debian/control changes. Hopefully I don't regret this (Julien knows what I'm 
> talking about).
> 
I guess you've tested upgrades with that, and they go at least as well
as without those packages :)
ack.

> 2) krunner #607974 src:kdebase-workspace. The upstream patch 
> http://tinyurl.com/6e6b24l is supposed to fix the crash. There is no time to 
> confirm the fix 100% as the crash, while pretty common, is random and hard to 
> reproduce reliably. The crash no longer occurs in KDE SC 4.5 (at least there 
> no new reports against it upstream) which this patch is included in.
> 
> I have already experienced the crash more than a dozen times. Whenever krunner 
> goes down, it's really annoying as krunner is one of the primary UI interfaces 
> for launching new applications in KDE.
> 
would delaying this to r1 allow to confirm the fix?

> 3) akregator #605094 src:kdepim. There is a trivial one-liner fix for this 
> crash upstream (http://websvn.kde.org/?revision=1208110&view=revision, click 
> on text changed). While the bug itself do not seem to be very urgent, I 
> believe that prior crashes might be the main cause for #590147.
> 
ack.

> via t-p-u:
> 
> 4) src:krusader #604196 There are reports that the included fix for this grave 
> bug is wrong. Too bad I would need to do a t-p-u upload in order to include 
> the supposedly right fix ( 
> http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1169424 + 
> http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1169519 ). I will test it as 
> best as I can.
> 
maybe r1 as well.

> All at urgency=high. (Which) Do you ACK?
> 
Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: