Re: gimp 1.1

It would help if you could warn me before upgrading libgimp* in incompatible ways. If you told me about gimp1.2, I missed it, and I apologize. Since gimp1.2 is really the new stable gimp, can't it be in a package called gimp? The libraries are incompatible and need to be different packages, but

Re: gimp 1.1

Ben Gertzfield wrote: > > "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joey> Do we actually need gimp1.1 and associated packages anymore? > Joey> gimp1.2 in in unstable. > > Nope, go ahead and toss it if we can get the other libgimp1.1 using > packages out too.. Looks like on

Re: gimp 1.1

> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> Do we actually need gimp1.1 and associated packages anymore? Joey> gimp1.2 in in unstable. Nope, go ahead and toss it if we can get the other libgimp1.1 using packages out too.. Ben -- Brought to you by the letters F and E an

gimp 1.1

Kevin Dalley wrote: > Source: xsane-gimp1.1 > Binary: xsane-gimp1.1 Do we actually need gimp1.1 and associated packages anymore? gimp1.2 in in unstable. -- see shy jo