On 2013-10-30 18:46, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > libsigc++ is a gnome package, but we are using an odd numbered minor > version (2.3.1 2012-10-18). The most recent even numbered version is > 2.2.11 (2012-09-23). > > My question here is whether libsigc++ follows the common > even-stable/odd-development pattern. If so, is there a specific reason > we are using a development release? > > Note: I just found libsigc++-2.3.1.news which says: > > 2.3.1 (unstable): ... > > So that answers my first question, but the second remains.
I don't think anything in the book requires the unstable version but I bet the newest GNOME depends on it. If that is so, my question would be: should we still cater to packages that we already decided to remove from the book? -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
