On Thu, 03 Sep 2020 at 11:46:56 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Simon McVittie (2020-09-03):
> > One way to resolve [needing a libstdc++ udeb]
> > might be to build the vte2.91 udeb with
> > -static-libstdc++, which makes it about 200K larger than it would
> > otherwise have been, but avoids needi
Hi Simon,
Simon McVittie (2020-09-03):
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 21:27:47 +0100, Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> > > We don't do c++ in d-i.
> >
> > Unfortunately this sounds really problematic. As of version 0.42 vte
> > has been using (more and more) C++. This is not like Ubuntu's PCRE2
> > hack whic
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 21:27:47 +0100, Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> > We don't do c++ in d-i.
>
> Unfortunately this sounds really problematic. As of version 0.42 vte
> has been using (more and more) C++. This is not like Ubuntu's PCRE2
> hack which is a matter of a few hours of work reverting and me
Hi guys,
> We don't do c++ in d-i.
Unfortunately this sounds really problematic. As of version 0.42 vte
has been using (more and more) C++. This is not like Ubuntu's PCRE2
hack which is a matter of a few hours of work reverting and merging a
few commits. It's reasonably impossible to revert to pl
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:24:35 +0100 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Getting back to src:vte2.91 though, that's not sufficient, as the
> resulting udeb depends (right now or after a rebuild against a patched
> pcre2) on libstdc++6. We don't do c++ in d-i.
That's going to be hard:
https://git.gnome.org/bro
Am 19.01.2018 um 03:02 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:11:36 -0500 Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> Control: block -1 by 887674
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>>> - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a
>>>few issues already,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:11:36 -0500 Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Control: block -1 by 887674
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a
> >few issues already, but I don't tend to do so in a timely fashion
> >
Control: severity 887674 important
Control: tag 887674 patch
Control: tag 887649 - patch
Cyril Brulebois (2018-01-19):
> Control: severity -1 887674
> Control: tag -1 patch
Wow, that was incredibly stupid, sorry. (Blaming this on headache.)
> No need to have a serious bug there, adjusting sever
Control: severity -1 887674
Control: tag -1 patch
Hi,
Jeremy Bicha (2018-01-18):
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a
> >few issues already, but I don't tend to do so in a timely fashion
> >s
Control: block -1 by 887674
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> - vte2.91 needs to build an installable udeb; I think I've reported a
>few issues already, but I don't tend to do so in a timely fashion
>since it's not used yet. Right now, libpcre2-8-0 is the issue.
Hi,
Jeremy Bicha (2018-01-18):
> Package: cdebconf-gtk-terminal
> Version: 0.31
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid buster
> User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Usertags: oldlibs vte
>
> cdebconf-gtk-terminal Depends and Build-Depends on vte. In fact, it's
> now the only package ke
Package: cdebconf-gtk-terminal
Version: 0.31
Severity: serious
Tags: sid buster
User: pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: oldlibs vte
cdebconf-gtk-terminal Depends and Build-Depends on vte. In fact, it's
now the only package keeping vte in Debian Testing. The Debian GNOME
team
12 matches
Mail list logo
