On 2016-03-11 21:06, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 22 December 2015 at 04:20, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
> wrote:
>> Looks like it doesn't overlap with our sandcastles made of Boost 1.16.0
>> rebuild, so I think it's fine to start it right away if you have
>> prepared an
On 22 December 2015 at 04:20, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
wrote:
> Looks like it doesn't overlap with our sandcastles made of Boost 1.16.0
> rebuild, so I think it's fine to start it right away if you have
> prepared an upgrade of opencv and a new opencv2 package.
Thanks for
On 5 December 2015 at 16:15, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
> wrote:
>> We can handle this rebuild with Evangelos' arch-rebuild script.
>
> Only if it is a simple pkgrel bump; the discussed
On 2015-12-21 20:20, Ray Rashif wrote:
> Right. We'll begin when staging is clear, I'll edit the TODO. I'll
> find some time to check the build status again of the packages.
Looks like it doesn't overlap with our sandcastles made of Boost 1.16.0
rebuild, so I think it's fine to start it right
On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 23:53 +0600, Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 4 December 2015 at 23:20, Anatol Pomozov > wrote:
> > Why to break it? Just push new opencv and opencv-2 to staging and
> > create a TODO to rebuild all the dependencies.
>
> I want to avoid a rebuild altogether
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
wrote:
> We can handle this rebuild with Evangelos' arch-rebuild script.
Only if it is a simple pkgrel bump; the discussed rebuild seems to
require packages switching over to a new opencv2 package, in which
case it
Hi
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and push 3.x, which should
> co-exist fine with 2.x. I suppose it's OK to break our naming
> convention in cases like these.
Why to break it? Just push new opencv and
On 4 December 2015 at 23:20, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Why to break it? Just push new opencv and opencv-2 to staging and
> create a TODO to rebuild all the dependencies.
I want to avoid a rebuild altogether because it's additional work for
nothing, but seeing that there
Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
> If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and push 3.x, which should
> co-exist fine with 2.x. I suppose it's OK to break our naming
> convention in cases like these.
>
Have you checked if this is actually still needed? At least KDE packages
(digikam,
Hey folks
I apologize for the rather tardy package maintenance and management
that's been going on for some time.
I had prepped opencv 3.x a long time ago, and it seems there is no
point in waiting for third-parties to migrate. I had users requesting
a separate package and a couple of them have
10 matches
Mail list logo