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

Bug#360055: libxft2 must be downgraded to stable's 2.1.7.1-1 for testing to be usable



Le jeudi 30 mars 2006 à 03:05 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 12:14:40PM +0200, Olivier Berger wrote:
> > Package: libxft2
> > Version: 2.1.7-1
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: renders package unusable
> 
> > (More details on issues in #350113)
> 
> Don't open new bugs to point people at already open bugs.  This is BTS
> abuse.
> 

I understand that, and expected this kind of answer, hoping that I could
get clarification.

Sorry for bothering, but I hope to help clarify the situation with
libxft2 for testing users.

Bug #350113 seems to last for some time, before the change affecting
testing users.

> > When will the issue with libxft2 be considered seriously
> 
> Your aspersions that bugs are not being considered seriously is
> inappropriate.
> 

Sorry... I have had to put libxft2* packages on hold since I experienced
the crash on "FT_GlyphSlot_Embolden" as many other people, and it looked
like the only way to workaround the crash.
I saw nothing change in the bugs, so I was thinking that maybe it was
not addressed.

My mistake, it seems.

> > so that testing becomes useable without downgrading libxft*.dev to
> > stable's versions ?
> 
> Testing is already perfectly usable if you're running testing.  If you are
> still seeing bug #350113, you aren't running current testing, because
> libxft2 2.1.8.2-3 is not broken when using the libfreetype6 2.1.10-1 that's
> also in testing.  

So you mean that the crashes in applications as reported in current open
grave bugs are now solved ?

> Further resolution of libfreetype6's ABI problems is
> impossible until freetype 2.2 is released.
> 
> And I have no idea what you're talking about with dev packages.  Bug #350113
> has nothing to do with -dev packages.
> 

OK. Only lixft2 binary package.

Thanks in advance if you can clarify this, and maybe update #350113
details for testing users who were hit by that bug at some time, and
reverted to stable's version (Following :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350113;msg=52)

Maybe I should have responded in 350113@bugs.debian.org quoting that
very #52 message, asking for update on that workaround first ?

Sorry about my mis-consideration of your work.

Best regards,
-- 
Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger@int-evry.fr>
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
INT Evry (http://www.int-evry.fr)
OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC





Reply to: