Götz Waschk wrote: > 2005/12/26, Richard Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>That seems to me like a bug. PLF should integrate with 2006 official - >>so any packages in plf should either >> - be built against 2006 official (1) >>or >> - be in plf-devel (2) >>or >> - have their dependencies in plf (3) >>I'd favour (3), i.e. where a plf package really needs a library which is >>newer than the version in 2006 official, the library ought to be >>included in PLF. > > > Hi, > > I disagree, we have the option to backport packages to the stable > distributions. PLF should not be the place for packages that could go > to contribs instead.
I thought official contribs was frozen? Of course if there is a backport, I agree it should go into contribs. > >>I've seen this happen also with gtkpod, which has a dependency on >>libgpod which is nowhere to be seen. > > libgpod is in the contribs for 10.1 10.2 and 2006.0 community. It is > written on the plf page, you need the devel contribs. This isn't a good solution. [Also, I can't see the reference you mention on the plf website, and easyurpmi doesn't handle this either] It should be possible to get a working system using just the following sources: 2006 - main 2006 - contribs 2006 - updates 2006 - plf-free 2006 - plf-nonfree and MAYBE adding club-commercial Richard _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
