8 Dec
2014
8 Dec
'14
7:46 p.m.
Tim, Slavek,
over the weekend I did a full TDE rebuild in Jessie.
The only two packages to fail were compiz-fusion-plugins-main-trinity and
compiz-fusion-plugins-extra-trinity, due to a
missing depencency for libjpeg62-dev.
The attached 'control' files fix the problem for both of them. Just rename the
files back to 'control'.
Cheers
Michele
8 Dec
8 Dec
8:27 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] compiz-fusion-plugins-*-trinity FTBFS patches (Jessie)
On Tuesday 09 of December 2014 04:46:34 Michele Calgaro wrote:
Tim, Slavek,
over the weekend I did a full TDE rebuild in Jessie.
The only two packages to fail were compiz-fusion-plugins-main-trinity and
compiz-fusion-plugins-extra-trinity, due to a missing depencency for
libjpeg62-dev.
The attached 'control' files fix the problem for both of them. Just rename
the files back to 'control'.
Cheers
Michele
I believe that it is better to use a general dependence libjpeg-dev.
What do you think?
--
Slávek
8:56 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] compiz-fusion-plugins-*-trinity FTBFS patches (Jessie)
On 2014/12/09 01:27 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
On Tuesday 09 of December 2014 04:46:34 Michele
Calgaro wrote:
That's probably better. Both libjpeg62-dev and libjpeg62-turbo-dev
provides libjpeg-dev. I didn't try building using only a dependency on
libjpeg-dev, but if there is no FTBFS in any distro, I would go for it.
Cheers
Michele
Tim, Slavek,
over the weekend I did a full TDE rebuild in Jessie.
The only two packages to fail were compiz-fusion-plugins-main-trinity and
compiz-fusion-plugins-extra-trinity, due to a missing depencency for
libjpeg62-dev.
The attached 'control' files fix the problem for both of them. Just rename
the files back to 'control'.
Cheers
Michele
I believe that it is better to use a general dependence libjpeg-dev.
What do you think?
9 Dec
9 Dec
8 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] compiz-fusion-plugins-*-trinity FTBFS patches (Jessie)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
On 2014/12/09 01:27 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
Slavek, do you want to handle this by building on your PPA and I'll copy
to the main archive once the builds are complete?
For R14.0.1 I will look into moving some of these older -deps packages
into the main GIT repositories.
Tim
On Tuesday 09 of December 2014 04:46:34 Michele
Calgaro wrote:
That's probably better. Both libjpeg62-dev and libjpeg62-turbo-dev
provides libjpeg-dev. I didn't try building using only a dependency on
libjpeg-dev, but if there is no FTBFS in any distro, I would go for it.
Cheers
Michele Tim, Slavek,
over the weekend I did a full TDE rebuild in Jessie.
The only two packages to fail were compiz-fusion-plugins-main-trinity
and
compiz-fusion-plugins-extra-trinity, due to a missing depencency for
libjpeg62-dev.
The attached 'control' files fix the problem for both of them. Just
rename
the files back to 'control'.
Cheers
Michele
I believe that it is better to use a general dependence libjpeg-dev.
What do you think?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlSHxVQACgkQLaxZSoRZrGFHuQDdE1klACIdwqWRdsmDogYaTC5D
I8CVxrHcmAdwOQDfbvlh6tD65jy/CEDFrF+j/5qkemz5Q88AUv6NSQ==
=7KPf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:31 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] compiz-fusion-plugins-*-trinity FTBFS patches (Jessie)
On 12/10/2014 01:00 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
For R14.0.1 I will look into moving some of these
older -deps packages
into the main GIT repositories.
Good! I think that was my first request on the ML almost 2 years ago :-)
If I can put forward a suggestion, we can create an "extra-dependencies" folder,
similar to the "dependencies" and
"libraries" folder already in the repo. I already use a similar structure,
although my "extra-dependencies" folder is
outside of the GIT repo at the moment.
Cheers
Michele
10 Dec
10 Dec
1:28 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] compiz-fusion-plugins-*-trinity FTBFS patches (Jessie)
On Wednesday 10 of December 2014 05:00:20 Timothy Pearson wrote:
For a moment, all updated packages will be ready to copy:
https://quickbuild.pearsoncomputing.net/~slavek-banko/+archive/ubuntu/deps-…
Here I would saw the question, what packages are useful and what packages we
really want to maintain. For example, for such Compiz I'd rather doubted if
we want it.
Some dependencies I consider to be temporary - such as lcms1, libept,
libapt-front.
Some dependencies are definite candidates for inclusion into the GIT - for
example libr.
--
Slávek
On 2014/12/09
01:27 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
Slavek, do you want to handle this by building on your PPA and I'll copy
to the main archive once the builds are complete?
For R14.0.1 I will look into moving some of these older -deps packages
into the main GIT repositories.
Tim
On Tuesday 09 of December 2014 04:46:34 Michele
Calgaro wrote:
That's probably better. Both libjpeg62-dev and libjpeg62-turbo-dev
provides libjpeg-dev. I didn't try building using only a dependency on
libjpeg-dev, but if there is no FTBFS in any distro, I would go for it.
Cheers
Michele Tim, Slavek,
over the weekend I did a full TDE rebuild in Jessie.
The only two packages to fail were compiz-fusion-plugins-main-trinity
and
compiz-fusion-plugins-extra-trinity, due to a missing depencency for
libjpeg62-dev.
The attached 'control' files fix the problem for both of them. Just
rename
the files back to 'control'.
Cheers
Michele
I believe that it is better to use a general dependence libjpeg-dev.
What do you think?
11 Dec
11 Dec
10:31 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] compiz-fusion-plugins-*-trinity FTBFS patches (Jessie)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
On Wednesday 10 of December 2014 05:00:20 Timothy
Pearson wrote:
it.
For a moment, all updated packages will be ready to copy:
https://quickbuild.pearsoncomputing.net/~slavek-banko/+archive/ubuntu/deps-…
Thanks; copied.
On
2014/12/09 01:27 PM, Slávek Banko wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 of December 2014 04:46:34 Michele Calgaro wrote:
>> Tim, Slavek,
>> over the weekend I did a full TDE rebuild in Jessie.
>> The only two packages to fail were
compiz-fusion-plugins-main-trinity
> and
> compiz-fusion-plugins-extra-trinity, due to a missing depencency for
> libjpeg62-dev.
> The attached 'control' files fix the problem for both of them. Just
> rename
> the files back to 'control'.
>
> Cheers
> Michele
I believe that it is better to use a general dependence libjpeg-dev.
What do you think?
That's probably better. Both libjpeg62-dev and libjpeg62-turbo-dev
provides libjpeg-dev. I didn't try building using only a dependency on
libjpeg-dev, but if there is no FTBFS in any distro, I would go for
Cheers
Michele
Slavek, do you want to handle this by building on your PPA and I'll copy
to the main archive once the builds are complete?
For R14.0.1 I will look into moving some of these older -deps packages
into the main GIT repositories.
Tim
Here I would saw the question, what packages are
useful and what packages
we
really want to maintain. For example, for such Compiz I'd rather doubted
if
we want it.
Not sure; if it still compiles why not?
Some dependencies I consider to be temporary - such as
lcms1, libept,
libapt-front.
Correct. These should not be included in GIT.
Some dependencies are definite candidates for
inclusion into the GIT - for
example libr.
Correct again. The fact that libr was not already in GIT was actually a
fairly serious oversight on my part; this will be fixed for our next SRU.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlSKi60ACgkQLaxZSoRZrGF+fwDeJpxe7ozKOV3zYhGl1Wz5atjO
kr+UKryfqvankADgl1BRRyWH7ELEB9fhJAViY238kdI6UgTtZYHmEA==
=Qmmj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3440
days inactive
3443
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Michele Calgaro -
Slávek Banko -
Timothy Pearson