Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay. I will release gtk+1.1.5 and glib1.1.5 source/binary packages
soon.
Great.
What should I do about the old gtk+1.1 and glib source packages
whose names don't match the new setup? Should they be removed from
the archives as soon as no more
GTK+ and GLib have a somewhat curious developmental situation; they release
versions that are binary (and source, sometimes) incompatible with
previous releases with each developmental 1.1.x release.
Version 1.1.5 of both GTK+ and GLib have just been released. I have
received complaints about
Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Version 1.1.5 of both GTK+ and GLib have just been released. I have
received complaints about packages compiled against, say GTK+ 1.1.2,
breaking as soon as 1.1.3 is installed. Should I:
1) make the source and binary names for the new packages like
On Sun, 22 Nov, 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
GTK+ and GLib have a somewhat curious developmental situation; they release
versions that are binary (and source, sometimes) incompatible with
previous releases with each developmental 1.1.x release.
Version 1.1.5 of both GTK+ and GLib have just
James == James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James dpkg doesn't do reverse dependency checking[1]; if I have
James say foo installed which depends on libgtk1.1 (= 1.1.5-1),
James it'll happily let me install libgtk1.1 1.1.6-1, silently
James breaking foo.
James (1) is the
5 matches
Mail list logo
