Hi Jaromír (and others),

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:18:38AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:06:21PM +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:

I just notice that jamin 0.97.14~cvs~81203-2 is not installing it's runtime dependency swh-plugins.
Should I fill bugreport or just inform this way is fine?

Probably best to file a bug so it doesn't get lost.

I agree with Eric generally: Best to always file a bugreport when you notice an bug, no matter how tiny: It is quite easy to close again if it turns out to be a non-issue (if you ever have the sad experience of being yelled at for filing a "wrong" bugreport then just ignore it: bugreports are generally highly appreciated, despite a few developers misunderstanding their purpose. :-)

...but this particular one is hereby on my radar:

I am to blame for recently lowering the dependency on swh-plugins to a recommendation, with other LDASP plugins fullfilling same.

Are the swh-plugins _always_ needed for _all_ uses of JAMin?

Are perhaps _some_ LADSPA plugin _always_ needed for _all_ uses?

Kind regards,

 - Jonas

* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to