On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/22 David Zeuthen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:14 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: >>> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 17:01 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: >>> > Options: >>> > >>> > o Rename intltool to intltool2, allow parallel install with intltool 1 >>> > o Add backwards compatibility support >>> > o Don't screw with minor build system things right now, and wait a year >>> > or so until waf is widely deployed, then switch wholesale and gain >>> > useful improvements instead of plugging a one small leak in the >>> > sinking shell script mess of auto* >>> >>> Can the release team please advise on this? (for example mandate that >>> we're using intltool < 0.40 for 2.24). FWIW, the thread starts here >>> >>> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2008-July/msg00011.html >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> It's now been 12 days since I sent this mail and I've received no reply. >> Is it possible for the release team to advise on how to proceed on >> dealing with the incident of ABI breakage? Thank you. > > > I had filed a bug in the Debian BTS and also upstream: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484721 > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=537352 > > intltool upstream doesn't seem to agree that this is a major annoyance. > I proposed a more smooth upgrade path in the bug report, but upstream > is apparently not interested. >
I've reopened that bug (with a rantier-than-necessary comment), because I think this is a huge annoyance. It breaks (almost) every single spec gnome package in Fedora... _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
