On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and D.Morgan at 11/07/12 09:07 did gyre and gimble: >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> There are a couple packages left still needing the old udev library and >>> I'd like to get them sorted now. >>> >>> [colin@jimmy ~]$ urpmq --whatrequires lib64udev0 libudev0 >>> chromium-browser-unstable >>> chromium-browser-unstable >>> enna >>> enna >>> lib64udev0 >>> lib64zypp901 >>> libmyth0.24 >>> libudev0 >>> libzypp901 >>> >>> >>> All the libs can be ignored as they are all no longer needed, so it's >>> just enna and chromium-browser-unstable. >>> >>> For enna, it needs fixes for (I think) new GCC or newer libvalhalla, so >>> it would be great if someone could look at that. I'm not familiar with >>> the project, but I did find some references that it's more or less >>> deprecated now (Geebox seems to have switched to xbmc as it's primary >>> frontend: >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/geexbox-devel/VC3WFx2h9ws) >>> >>> For chromium-browser-unstable I propose we just drop it. We can keep the >>> -stable chromium named as it is just now although I would personally >>> prefer to see it just called "chromium-browser" (as no other package has >>> this strange naming policy and arguably many of them could if we shipped >>> two versions). I don't see a problem re-introducing an -unstable variant >>> again in the future, but unless someone is actively maintaining it it's >>> arguably just getting in the way. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> (CC'ed TV as he has been the most frequent committed to -unstable of late) >>> >>> Col >> >> i will update it soon ( today i hope ) > > Cool. I presume you mean the crhomium bit? > > What about the enna? Anyone know anything about that? > > Col
yes chromium :)
