[arch-dev-public] [signoff] gpm 1.20.3
in testing for both arches. Changes: - minor upstream update - patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others didn't applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from interfering with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be necessary anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did. - closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on the system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this reason, forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to inform the users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the forum/ML to answer user's concern) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
in testing for both arches.
Changes:
- minor upstream update
- patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others didn't applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from interfering with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be necessary anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did.
- closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on the system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this reason, forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to inform the users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the forum/ML to answer user's concern)
Other than the need to force, this seems to be fine. Maybe a pre_upgrade message that it is ok to force it? /me shrugs I'll signoff on i686
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
in testing for both arches.
Changes:
- minor upstream update
- patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others didn't applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from interfering with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be necessary anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did.
- closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on the system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this reason, forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to inform the users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the forum/ML to answer user's concern)
Other than the need to force, this seems to be fine. Maybe a pre_upgrade message that it is ok to force it? /me shrugs
I'll signoff on i686
I'll signoff for i686 as well. The force did catch me off guard though, it might be worth a news item. I actually didn't know that everyone would have to do it until I took a look at this signoff email. -Dan
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
in testing for both arches.
Changes:
- minor upstream update
- patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others didn't applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from interfering with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be necessary anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did.
- closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on the system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this reason, forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to inform the users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the forum/ML to answer user's concern)
Other than the need to force, this seems to be fine. Maybe a pre_upgrade message that it is ok to force it? /me shrugs
I'll signoff on i686
I'll signoff for i686 as well. The force did catch me off guard though, it might be worth a news item. I actually didn't know that everyone would have to do it until I took a look at this signoff email.
-Dan
Any x86_64 signoff? I'll do a news item tonight and will post it here for a review. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
in testing for both arches.
Changes:
- minor upstream update
- patches cleanup. One of them has been merged upstream, the others
applied anymore. However, they were mostly to prevent gpm from interfering with some terminal apps like vim and mc. They don't seem to be necessary anymore as vim and mc works correctly from the tests I did.
- closes FS#9949 : The /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 symlink was present on
didn't the
system but for unkonw reasons was no longer in the package. For this reason, forcing is necessary to install gpm 1.20.3. I don't know how to inform the users about this ( front page news? or just keep an eye on the forum/ML to answer user's concern)
Other than the need to force, this seems to be fine. Maybe a pre_upgrade message that it is ok to force it? /me shrugs
I'll signoff on i686
I'll signoff for i686 as well. The force did catch me off guard though, it might be worth a news item. I actually didn't know that everyone would have to do it until I took a look at this signoff email.
-Dan
Any x86_64 signoff?
I'll do a news item tonight and will post it here for a review.
I can sign off. I didn't do any hard-core testing, but it broke nothing for me.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Belanger