Re: Bug#906016: transition: gjs built with mozjs60
Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.boot,gmane.linux.debian.ports.s390,gmane.linux.debian.devel.gtk-gnome |
|---|---|
| Organization | Debian |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[email protected]> (2019-02-08): > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 10:25:01 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> On 17/12/2018 15:56, Simon McVittie wrote: > >>> The options I can see are: > >>> > >>> * Accept that task-gnome-desktop is not going to be installable on s390x. > >>> Change the testing migration scripts to skip installability testing for > >>> that package on s390x, or ignore the fact that it fails. Optionally > >>> change tasksel to make task-gnome-desktop Architecture: any, and give it > >>> some Build-Depends-Arch that are not satisfiable on s390x so that it will > >>> not be built there. > >>> - s390x d-i users will not be able to install a GNOME desktop. Hopefully > >>> the menu item would not appear, and task-desktop would pick up the > >>> second-preference desktop instead, which currently seems to be XFCE? > >>> - Risk: is it possible to ignore uninstallability of task-gnome-desktop > >>> without ignoring uninstallability of other task packages? > > > > I would prefer this option if possible: the GNOME desktop is clearly > > not intended for use on mainframes, and I doubt anyone is seriously > > trying to use it there (as opposed to individual GNOME apps in a > > remote-desktop framework, which might be something that people do). > > However, it requires action from the release team and d-i > > maintainers. > > Cyril, can we do something to not offer task-gnome-desktop on s390x? > Does that need changes in d-i or tasksel? FWIW we already have this in place, regarding the default desktop: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/tasksel/blob/master/default_desktop I'm not sure how to hide a particular entry on a particular arch; I'm not a tasksel expert and won't be one in the next 5 minutes. But it seems to me the immediate concern was about the default desktop anyway, which shouldn't be an issue in the first place because of this default_desktop shell function? Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois ([email protected]) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAlxdpOQACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSDfxxAAhEfJYVkpSmtqP8360ei2ljMC9E5wnEKYU4xzCSv/Mfey243TSyAwdX1p TE5KAV54WLGC7ey9/JFD3XM3tf7gJOJz4StWZ+ppQ61bIAEQWBQ1TJFSL109PSij kI/3gOa4EP3jNWEoMvnh8Rm+n5knchdIB0Rb5n/Z6HoxMaz17WBk1lvZmBfUDIpO rC2yx/EBKVOK/Ur7d11Q5tCKkd08vAPXxbgWhl/jR5a8NStBKEDm+GMIhADQVzPn dulw4SkAYsV4XbPMUbOq/GDk+kWFaTHexaA4kgG0Ygc/RufzTLKvTxDsoptrnGNt 3BCG3tQTCVqPoQUd3wj2nSAu2KrZUjR3BvVwoNztibeML5zyiWE/HEuugSjex7he b9WRkFMj0FtKCa5QyCe0jV9aYSl44VmS1HYRNWixeue3GF86JoVICGomlfUpxbE7 kgyQZmMDguFpnUle4bZpS1Wu65If7gNGOeOzEfYwqP/Is2UYCKvl61P4hZe9ME5+ cjAIu+nKQaqGg1ruhGAgh/uOOrPGy65Zb1JyxGys9Pyd6Oa3GliB3kgF8ncc7dTW 8dQyhtlXcCGIlZ3V7k0MZwCkOvEmXxTbAhW1dWqFUI0nOXB3Aw/p3X9T5ZVc1w5F Z0vbjnXlyIrjGkxRxtbC1ed7/bGHxaUpaX8iYqf2AB+CeEvoULw= =ZiHC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----