Hi Ron, On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > > I thought the plan was that we'd just depend on libsnack2 (or whatever) > so that if you ever ended up adding tcl-snack-pulse (or whatever), then > people could just choose whatever backend suited them best (which was > the problem people originally had with -alsa). > > The rename of the snack packages doesn't bother me otherwise, but is > there some reason that old plan really isn't the best plan anymore?
In fact there's a change in plans. I've dropped the idea of separate packages like tcl-snack-oss or tcl-snack-alsa or whatever. For now (and hopefully forever) there's only one tcl-snack which all other packages should depend on. It in turn depends either on libsnack-alsa or libsnack-oss, whichever users choose individually. So, just make the wavesurfer package depend on tcl-snack, and I won't bother you anymore with unnecessary changes. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
