|--==> Junichi Uekawa writes: JU> Hi, >>I've doubled checked the new packages, both on amd64 and i386, and I >>confirm that the work fine, without breaking other packages (this >>0.102.20 upstream release was also included in the recent 1.0 64 >>Studio release, and no bug reports have come so far). >> >>So if everybody is fine with it I'm going to upload the new package >>within this week.
JU> Can you wait until etch release please ? This will mean binaries JU> compiled on sid will have a different SONAME requirements, so will no JU> longer work on etch. Right ? No they will still work, as the SONAME is unchanged with respect to the jack version in etch, it's still 0.0.23. >>I'm also thinking to file bug reports against those packages that >>build depend on libjack0.100.0-dev, and which should from now on use >>simply libjack-dev, although a dummy libjack0.100.0-dev package >>depending on libjack-dev is still provide to avoid FTBFSs. JU> This is pretty disruptive, and does not contribute to general activity JU> of etch release. Why that? The libjack-dev package is currently a virtual package (which at the moment is only provided by libjack0.100.0-dev) , and in any case a package should better depend on it rather that on libjack0.100.0-dev, unless there are specific reasons to do it. So I think that bug report should be done in any case, to prevent having to change build-dependencies if libjack0.100.0-dev gets updated, say to libjack0.102.20-dev. Ciao, Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
