Il 09/08/2013 17:18, Sergei Golovan ha scritto: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Giulio Paci <[email protected]> wrote: >> Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto: >>> Why "tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa" is bad for you? >> >> Because all the programs that use snack will have to add all the backends as >> alternatives, in order to support them. >> Right now there are only two backends and there has not been any activity >> upstream since a long time, so it is unlikely that there will be any other >> backends in the near >> future, but the situation may change. > > I guess, after there will be the third backend, say for pulseaudio, > I'll split out the ALSA and OSS dependent libraries into libsnack-oss > and libsnack-alsa (and libsnack-pulseaudio for the third one) and make > tcl-snack depend on all of them as alternatives. For now "tcl-snack | > tcl-snack-alsa" seems good enough for me.
It seems not for me and apparently it seems not for Ron Lee as well (See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659974#37). Moreover in that thread you proposed to use dependency on the unversioned libsnack2 in order to solve the issue with wavesurfer http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659974#57 and now you are changing the package without offering any similar possibility. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
