On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:43:07PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Samstag 28 Oktober 2006 20:30 schrieb David Nusinow:
For etch+1, I'm planning on making it enabled by default and doing away
with most of the debconf stuff anyway though.
AFAIK this can be very bad when looking at
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:59:01AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:56, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and
untested, so shortly before the release?
Is it wanted for all architectures, for all systems, irrespective of
On 10/29/06, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:43:07PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Samstag 28 Oktober 2006 20:30 schrieb David Nusinow:
For etch+1, I'm planning on making it enabled by default and doing away
with most of the debconf stuff anyway though.
On Sunday 29 October 2006 14:14, David Nusinow wrote:
[0] I'd love some feedback from KDE people on this. I'll sit down and
poke around the kwin code a bit to see how it works if I have the time.
In that case wouldn't a mail to debian-kde with some information and
instructions be the best way
Am Sonntag 29 Oktober 2006 17:19 schrieb Frans Pop:
On Sunday 29 October 2006 14:14, David Nusinow wrote:
[0] I'd love some feedback from KDE people on this. I'll sit down and
poke around the kwin code a bit to see how it works if I have the time.
In that case wouldn't a mail to debian-kde
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:11:11PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 10/28/06, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How heavily customized does your debian install have to be? I just
installed the packages from the XSF svn repo and beryl worked out of the
box, once I enabled composite. This is
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:23:27PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:50:50PM -0300, eduardo.oliva barruzi wrote:
Hi, I just wanna know if there are any problems regarding the License or
something else that make these packages actually unavailable?
Neither has
On 10/28/06, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:23:27PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
Given you're talking about cgwd, you prolly mean beryl (nee
compiz-quinnstorm) rather than the original compiz which is
in Debian.
The beryl packaging is being undertaken
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 02:30:19PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If we're going to ship xorg with aiglx and composite enabled by
default (actually i dunno really), beryl in etch and in default
desktop environment (just listed not enabled by default) would be a
huge win, maybe it's too late now.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:50:13PM -0400, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 02:30:19PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If we're going to ship xorg with aiglx and composite enabled by
default (actually i dunno really), beryl in etch and in default
desktop
Am Samstag 28 Oktober 2006 20:30 schrieb David Nusinow:
For etch+1, I'm planning on making it enabled by default and doing away
with most of the debconf stuff anyway though.
AFAIK this can be very bad when looking at performance and CPU usage, doesn't
it? In this case, it should be only be
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:27:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:50:13PM -0400, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 02:30:19PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If we're going to ship xorg with aiglx and composite enabled by
default (actually
On 10/28/06, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 02:30:19PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If we're going to ship xorg with aiglx and composite enabled by
default (actually i dunno really), beryl in etch and in default
desktop environment (just listed not enabled by
On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:11, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If there will be no regressions, please add the composite bit in the
xorg.conf by default.
Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and untested, so
shortly before the release?
Is it wanted for all architectures, for all
On 10/28/06, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:11, Gustavo Franco wrote:
If there will be no regressions, please add the composite bit in the
xorg.conf by default.
Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and untested, so
shortly before the
On Saturday 28 October 2006 23:56, Gustavo Franco wrote:
Is that really a good idea for something that is so young and
untested, so shortly before the release?
Is it wanted for all architectures, for all systems, irrespective of
their speed?
Calm down Frans, what about aiglx then?
Yes,
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:50:50PM -0300, eduardo.oliva barruzi wrote:
Hi, I just wanna know if there are any problems regarding the License or
something else that make these packages actually unavailable?
Given you're talking about cgwd, you prolly mean beryl (nee
compiz-quinnstorm) rather
Hi, I just wanna know if there are any problems regarding the License or something else that make these packages actually unavailable?
Thanks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/06 18:50, eduardo.oliva barruzi wrote:
Hi, I just wanna know if there are any problems regarding the License or
something else that make these packages actually unavailable?
$ wajig policy compiz
compiz:
Installed: (none)
Candidate:
19 matches
Mail list logo
