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

Re: Bug#411012: Here, here!



* Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 21:36 -0700, Tristan Schmelcher wrote:
> > I can confirm this. I am running Debian unstable and I did what James
> > did (downloaded the compiz-gtk .deb from experimental, unpacked it into
> > a directory and reconstructed the DEBIAN subdirectory, removed the
> > "Conflicts" line from the control file, remade it with dpkg-deb, and
> > installed with dpkg) and it is working fine.
> > 
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions compiz
> > compiz/experimental uptodate 0.3.6-1
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions compiz-core
> > compiz-core/experimental uptodate 0.3.6-1
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions compiz-gtk
> > compiz-gtk/experimental uptodate 0.3.6-1
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions compiz-gnome
> > compiz-gnome/experimental uptodate 0.3.6-1
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions compiz-plugins
> > compiz-plugins/experimental uptodate 0.3.6-1
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions metacity
> > metacity/unstable uptodate 1:2.18.2-3
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions metacity-common
> > metacity-common/unstable uptodate 1:2.18.2-3
> > *******@********:~$ apt-show-versions libmetacity0
> > libmetacity0/unstable uptodate 1:2.18.2-3
> > *******@********:~$ uname -a
> > Linux ******** 2.6.18-4-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Apr 18 17:35:10 UTC 2007 x86_64
> > GNU/Linux
> > 
> > (You'll have to take my word for it that those things are also all
> > actually running :) .)
> 
> Nobody said there was a compile time conflict... the real question,
> which numerous people have failed to answer over the last couple of
> months, is: Does gtk-window-decorator built against libmetacity0 >=
> 2.15.21 work with libmetacity0 < 2.15.21? If not, the conflict just
> needs to be reversed or changed into a versioned dependency.
> 
> 
> > Another thing. This should be fixed and compiz 0.3.6 moved from
> > experimental to unstable sometime in the not-too-distant future, because
> > currently the (legitimate, I assume) conflict between compiz 0.2.2 and
> > libmetacity0 >= 2.15.21 prevents anyone from having both compiz and
> > metacity up-to-date in unstable.
> 
> Agreed.

As a matter of fact, the git repository currently contains compiz 0.5.0,
which I guess could go right into unstable. Just waiting for someone to do
the honors.

Cheers,
Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: