On 13/03/15 20:26, Niels Thykier wrote:
> (Re: the follow-up itself, the only thing I noticed is that pkg-gnome
> seemed to get dropped, I have re-added them).
I'm not sure whether [hidden email] is
the best place for this sort of thing: it receives all the BTS noise
from every GNOME package, so I suspect a lot of GNOME maintainers
subscribe to the individual packages they're interested in instead.
debian-gtk-gnome exists and is lower-traffic - is the split perhaps like
pkg-games-devel / debian-devel-games, where all BTS noise goes to the
former but discussion is normally on the latter? (But the more central
GNOME people would know better.)
>> Niels wrote:
>>> * #775877 - gnome-session: No mouse pointer after login
>> I cannot reproduce this, but I've found a bug that seems like a
>> plausible reason for the crash reported by the bug submitter, and had a
>> 2-line patch accepted upstream.
> This one: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=298916&action=diff ?
Yes, that one.
> Seems reasonable. Especially if we know the lack of an error can
> trigger an assertion. If nothing else, we fixes someone else's problem
> before they can report it. :)
OK, will count that as pre-approval and upload.
>>> * #776746 - gnome-session: GNOME crashes during a remote desktop
>> As far as I can tell, the issue here is that GNOME Shell requires the
>> decade-old Composite extension, but neither of our Xvnc implementations
>> seem to have that
> This is certainly unfortunate but I agree that that fixing it in Jessie
> is unlikely to happen.
> What are the prospects on getting a more informative error message in GNOME?
> Failing (or in addition to) that, it might be worth documenting it in
> the release-notes - apparently we got a user base relying on VNC and
> GNOME working together.
I'll defer to the opinions of people who are better at GUIs than me :-)
>> My suggestion would be to reassign this to our two Xvnc implementations
>> with "affects xrdp" and perhaps "affects gnome-session", and drop it to
>> a non-RC severity.
> Or downgrade and block it on the tigervnc RFP? (Just a suggestion - not
> sure which is better). Anyhow, please go ahead with that.
>>> * #770130 - gnome-shell: fails to start on i386 when built with [...]
>> Two separate issues, probably. I've unmerged #775235, which has a tested
>> (but upstream-rejected) patch, and reassigned to mesa; this seems worth
>> fixing for jessie, since it affects fairly normal VM configurations and
>> there's a known-working patch.
> Ok? It is currently tagged "moreinfo", but it does not seem to be
> intentional based on your message above and the last message in the bug.
I think that tag was left over from asking the submitter of one of the
other merged bugs for moreinfo. I've removed it.