Jamie:
I was well aware of this being present but it's been that way for as far back
as I can remember for libmyth* packages. With several of those libraries in
question, the code is ffmpeg code that benefits from the performance
enhancement. I would be happy to add an override and a note to
On Dec 04, 2010, at 06:08 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>These days there's dh --with=autoreconf, and for CDBS users,
>/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/autoreconf.mk, which handle all the autoreconf stuff
>and
>cleanup after without needing to commit a huge autoreconf patch into
>debian/patches.
>
>Just buil
On Saturday 04,December,2010 06:02 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I've been working on fixing an ftbfs for graphviz on natty:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/graphviz/+bug/683182
>
> The fundamental problem is that there are some hard-coded assumptions about
> what Python versions ar
I've been working on fixing an ftbfs for graphviz on natty:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/graphviz/+bug/683182
The fundamental problem is that there are some hard-coded assumptions about
what Python versions are available, and those only go up to Python 2.6 (and
only to Python 2.5
On 03.12.2010 19:15, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> see http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking
>
> Thanks, I'm familiar with the Debian effort and agree this change is a
> good thing. My question is more on the Ubuntu side: there are ~400
> pac
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> see http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking
Thanks, I'm familiar with the Debian effort and agree this change is a
good thing. My question is more on the Ubuntu side: there are ~400
packages (or more) that would require diffs from Debia
On 12/02/2010 02:42 PM, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 11:36 -0800, Jono Bacon wrote:
>
>> * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at
>> the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks
>> think of the tracks? One suggestion is that
On 12/02/2010 02:36 PM, Jono Bacon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Today I had a discussion with some of the other organizers of UDS, and
> we have been reviewing some of the feedback from the survey and we have
> some areas in which we would like to improve.
>
> I wanted to highlight these areas and ask for
Dnia czwartek, 2 grudnia 2010 o 20:36:19 Jono Bacon napisał(a):
> * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at
> the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks
> think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and
> instead
Hello,
I am proud to announce a Debian sprint on embedded and ARM [0] which
will be discussing and working on embedded tools support, ARM for hard
float (armhf) support, multiarch support within Debian environment.
I thought you might be interested and you are welcome to come along.
If it is
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 11:36 -0800, Jono Bacon wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback!
Jono, I did a little mind map based on my past experience that might (or
might not) be helpful for UDS planning:
http://imagebin.ca/view/0pJwdCZh.html
If we use the same door sign generating scripts, I think we coul
On 3 December 2010 06:36, Jono Bacon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Today I had a discussion with some of the other organizers of UDS, and
> we have been reviewing some of the feedback from the survey and we have
> some areas in which we would like to improve.
>
> I wanted to highlight these areas and ask f
On 03.12.2010 18:11, Scott Howard wrote:
>> On Dec 03, 2010, at 08:23 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>
>>> Long time no see... And 1474 packages failed to build!
>
> There are lots of:
> [LD_ERROR] libfoo.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
>
> due to binutils-gold not doing indirect linking.
> On Dec 03, 2010, at 08:23 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>>Long time no see... And 1474 packages failed to build!
There are lots of:
[LD_ERROR] libfoo.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
due to binutils-gold not doing indirect linking. Is there an organized
effort to address them? They a
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:00 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Jono Bacon wrote:
> > These areas are:
> >
> > * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at
> > the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks
> > think of the tracks? One suggestion is
On Dec 03, 2010, at 08:23 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>Long time no see... And 1474 packages failed to build!
>
>http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi
Thanks. I was making some progress on the graphviz failure before my stint as
patch pilot yesterday. Hopefully I'll have a branch to fix
Am Freitag, den 03.12.2010, 09:50 -0600 schrieb Jamie Strandboge:
> I thought it would be nice if the date of the last comment was shown in
> the sponsoring report[2]. That way it is easier to coordinate work-- if
> today's other patch pilot already commented on it today, and he/she was
> the last
After re-reviewing CodeReviews[1] I started working off of the
sponsoring report[2]. I reviewed two rather time consuming sponsored
security uploads, 3 bugs and looked at one merge. One person pinged me
in #ubuntu-devel to sponsor an upload (one of the aforementioned
security bugs). I got a prompt
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 02:36:19 pm Jono Bacon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Today I had a discussion with some of the other organizers of UDS, and
> we have been reviewing some of the feedback from the survey and we have
> some areas in which we would like to improve.
>
> I wanted to highlight the
> * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at
> the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks
> think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and
> instead just have 'tags' for sessions (e.g. you add a session
> and ta
Jono Bacon wrote:
> These areas are:
>
> * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at
> the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks
> think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and
> instead just have 'tags' for sess
21 matches
Mail list logo
