On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:30:11PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
Hmmm. If I compare the MANIFEST.udebs from testing and my build the only
thing that jumps out is:
- libfribidi0-udeb 0.10.9-1+b1 amd64
+ libfribidi0-udeb 0.19.2-1 amd64
On Wednesday 24 February 2010, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
So, after reading #570581, is this actually a fribidi or a newt bug ?
It can probably be argued that it's both :-)
In newt for not initializing and in fribidi for not terminating.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:28:32AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
It's possible (and arguably sane, on the basis of defence in depth at
least) to work around this in newt. See:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=570581
---end quoted text---
I tried Ubuntu's patch right
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:03:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 24 February 2010, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
So, after reading #570581, is this actually a fribidi or a newt bug ?
It can probably be argued that it's both :-)
In newt for not initializing and in fribidi for not
On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
Hmmm. If I compare the MANIFEST.udebs from testing and my build the only
thing that jumps out is:
- libfribidi0-udeb 0.10.9-1+b1 amd64
+ libfribidi0-udeb 0.19.2-1 amd64
Confirmed and bug filed (#571044).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Looks like syslinux has a regression:
http://people.debian.org/~fjp/tmp/d-i/daily-borked1.png
There's also something wrong with the newt frontend:
http://people.debian.org/~fjp/tmp/d-i/daily-borked2.png
http://people.debian.org/~fjp/tmp/d-i/daily-borked3.png
I also saw that a few days ago with
6 matches
Mail list logo
