Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2016-03-12 Thread Bartłomiej Piotrowski
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2016-03-11 Thread Rashif Ray Rahman
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-21 Thread Ray Rashif
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-21 Thread Bartłomiej Piotrowski
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-05 Thread Bartłomiej Piotrowski
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-05 Thread Evangelos Foutras
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-04 Thread Anatol Pomozov
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-04 Thread Ray Rashif
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

Re: [arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-04 Thread Antonio Rojas
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,

[arch-dev-public] On pushing a standalone opencv 3.x

2015-12-04 Thread Rashif Ray Rahman
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