On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 21:42 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote: > On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 12:05:04AM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 17:37 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm looking for advice on the transition of the gnome-db libraries to > > > their newer versions. > > > > > > At first, I had thought on renaming the packages in order to allow the > > > installation of the newer version along with the older one. > > > > libgda 2.0 (there are no tarball releases yet, I think) is meant to > > install in parallel with libgda 1.2, so there should be no problem. If > > you find conflicts then you should tell upstream as soon as possible. > > > > Or are you talking about libgda 1.0 versus libgda 1.2? I think in both > > 1.0 and 1.2, the libs very actually called libgda2, to add to the > > confusion. > > Yes, I'm talking about libgda 1.0 (soname 1) and > libgda 1.2 (soname 3)
Yeah, that was a bit of a mess, and it needed debian (and other packagers to fix it). > libgda 2.0 will take some time to be released as stable, AFAIK. > > > > However, > > > some things are making me wonder if this was the right choice: > > > > > > * The long time the new libgda2-3 source package is already > > > sitting in NEW > > > > What upstream version of libgda is that? > > 1.2 > > > -- > Gustavo R. Montesino > Debian Brasil - http://www.debianbrasil.org/ > > -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
