Re: esound with libasound2
(Please cc: me if you reply this message.) Ok, I understand what your thinking. I will not do NMU. However, I don't think only ALSA 0.5 is stable release. The current ALSA is also enough stable for sid (unstable release) users. So I believe the upload of esound with libasound2 to sid is not so bad action. Moreover, the upstream ALSA developers said The 0.5.x series is considered deprecated and is no longer supported (in their web page.), and Debian will treat gcc3.2 as a default c compiler in near feture. I believe ALSA 0.5 cannot be built by gcc 3.2. Then, please reconsider about uploading esound built with libasound2. Regards. By the way, how about gdm package? The current (in sid) gnome version is 2 !! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Murray) Subject: Re: esound with libasound2 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:13:52 -0800 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rmurray On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:48:12PM +0900, Ryuichi Arafune wrote: rmurray any objections? rmurray rmurray This is an ABI change, and as ALSA 0.5 is still the stable release, (and rmurray the only one that seems to work for me) I don't want to change it yet. rmurray rmurray As in #170923, we have newer version of esound. If rmurray rmurray Debian esound has several changes from upstream. The new upstream version rmurray doesn't have many changes, and some of them are already in the package, rmurray which is why I haven't updated it. rmurray rmurray there is no objections about NMU, I would like to upload for this new rmurray version of esound. rmurray rmurray Please do not.
Re: esound with libasound2
It would be useful if someone would package the current esound program. The esound package maintainer has clearly expressed his lack of interest in doing so. esound2 anyone? -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: esound with libasound2
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:13:52PM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote: This is an ABI change, and as ALSA 0.5 is still the stable release, (and the only one that seems to work for me) I don't want to change it yet. Well, what Ryuichi said... ALSA people don't support 0.5 anymore. In any case, I guess it's ok to stick to libasound1 for now, as ALSA people still do bad stuff with libasound2 with every new release candidate (if they can be called rc's). ALSA upstreams were planning to drop alsa-0.5 packages RSN. I guess this won't include alsa-lib-0.5, as it's still used by a handful[1] of packages, but the rest of stuff is just too painful to maintain. Jordi [1] Reverse Depends: xmp-alsa,libasound1 0.5.5 soundtracker,libasound1 0.5.5 smurf,libasound1 0.5.8 pmidi,libasound1 0.5.5 libphonecore1,libasound1 0.5.5 libesd-alsa0,libasound1 0.5.5 libasound1-dev,libasound1 0.5.10b-1 libao0,libasound1 freesci,libasound1 0.5.5 alsa-utils-0.5,libasound1 0.5.5 -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/~jordi/ pgpik4yIchqdz.pgp Description: PGP signature
esound with libasound2
(Please cc me when you reply this message.) Hello all, As I said in Bug#170915, I would like to do NMU for esound package built with libasound2. I send the mail one week ago, but the current maintainer have not replied any more. any objections? As in #170923, we have newer version of esound. If there is no objections about NMU, I would like to upload for this new version of esound.
Re: esound with libasound2
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:48:12PM +0900, Ryuichi Arafune wrote: any objections? This is an ABI change, and as ALSA 0.5 is still the stable release, (and the only one that seems to work for me) I don't want to change it yet. As in #170923, we have newer version of esound. If Debian esound has several changes from upstream. The new upstream version doesn't have many changes, and some of them are already in the package, which is why I haven't updated it. there is no objections about NMU, I would like to upload for this new version of esound. Please do not. -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The opinions expressed here are my own. pgpKQf6bfIQ6E.pgp Description: PGP signature
