Hi all,
given all responses favoring separate repositories, I think we should go
that route.
I think this is a good example of how we, the community, can influence the
process and make decisions. Let's hope we can do this more and more.
Thanks for all your input.
- Niels
ext Graham Cobb wrote:
Nokia
should be keeping all system libraries up to date and should be scheduling
testing, to verify that the updated libraries do not break anything, as part
of the release cycle. It is part of Nokia's responsibilities to its
development community.
Sure, and
On Monday 05 May 2008 12:42:33 Niels Breet wrote:
Do we need a separate extras repository for diablo or should we just add a
link to chinook?
I strongly believe they need to be separate.
The main reason isn't from the point of view of Diablo, it is from the point
of view of Chinook. The
On Mon, May 5, 2008 14:59, Ryan Pavlik wrote:
For those working with the enhancements, it would obviously be best to
keep the Diablo stuff separate, but allow a very easy forward/back-port of
packages. In many cases, it's just a changing of a target in the debian
changelog - is there someway
Graham cobb wrote:
If there are *any* library changes (you mentioned libssl but
I *really* hope there will be an up to date version of glib!)
Perhaps we did a really bad job explaining what not changing the
platform means.
I'm 99.99% certain that glib2.0 will be based on 2.12.12, just as it
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 10:11:57 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm 99.99% certain that glib2.0 will be based on 2.12.12, just as it was
in the previous release.
That is *very* disappointing. Presumably Diablo is the last update until 2009
at the earliest. More and more applications cannot be built
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only major changes are feature updates to the browser (not actually
a new browser, it's still based on the same old gecko as 2008)
Sorry for hijacking thread, this is certainly not central to this
discussion. Does the it's still based on the same old gecko as 2008
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 13:32:34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A properly versioned operating system should be able to handle side by
side libraries.
Why on earth bother? I am also not a DD but my understanding was that in
Debian this was only done when some ABI change occurs and means an
On Tuesday 06 May 2008, Graham Cobb wrote:
To take a real example, I previously supported Opensync on mistral,
gregale, bora and chinook. I have already abandonned support for all
except chinook because it was too much effort to deal with the old glib
versions. For the moment I persevere
Dnia Tuesday, 6 of May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał:
Graham cobb wrote:
If there are *any* library changes (you mentioned libssl but
I *really* hope there will be an up to date version of glib!)
Perhaps we did a really bad job explaining what not changing the
platform means.
I'm
That said, to some extent people obviously do want to use
later versions of libraries when/where possible. No one
loves the idea of using code that's many years out of
date with its ever growing set of known bugs.
However sometimes bug-wise compatibility triumphs.
Graham Cobb wrote:
I wrote:
I'm 99.99% certain that glib2.0 will be based on 2.12.12, just as it
was in the previous release.
Assuming I'm correctly reading the changelog there was only
one change to glib2.0, and that was to fix shlibs in debian/rules.
I should have written to _Nokia's_ glib2.0 for diablo.
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A full list of the new symbols in 2.14 and 2.16 is here:
2.14: http://library.gnome.org/devel/glib/stable/ix09.html
2.16: http://library.gnome.org/devel/glib/stable/ix10.html
Aside from GIO, which has recently received a big push for GNOME
applications, I don't
En/na Marius Vollmer ha escrit:
ext Marcin Juszkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does someone work on apt-get update;apt-get upgrade from Chinook to
Diablo then?
No, unfortunately not. We are working to get apt-get upgrade working
for releases that come after Diablo.
Does it mean
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Graham Cobb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 05 May 2008 12:42:33 Niels Breet wrote:
Do we need a separate extras repository for diablo or should we just add a
link to chinook?
I strongly believe they need to be separate.
Hi
Considering the current
Hi all,
As you probably all know Diablo, the next revision of the IT OS, is coming
out sooner or later.
Diablo will be binary compatible with chinook, but there will be two
additions. There will be a new email framework and a newer version of
libssl (0.9.8) because of requirements for the WiMax
Dnia Monday 05 of May 2008, Niels Breet napisał:
As you probably all know Diablo, the next revision of the IT OS, is
coming out sooner or later.
Diablo will be binary compatible with chinook, but there will be two
additions. There will be a new email framework and a newer version of
libssl
Niels Breet wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 13:58, Rafael Proença wrote:
Do we need a separate extras repository for diablo or should we just
add a link to chinook?
My guess is that if you link diablo to chinook what will happen is that
all the chinook boxes will be upgraded to
ext Marcin Juszkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does someone work on apt-get update;apt-get upgrade from Chinook to
Diablo then?
No, unfortunately not. We are working to get apt-get upgrade working
for releases that come after Diablo.
I agree that a smooth upgrade path is needed: without
19 matches
Mail list logo
