Am 29.06.2010 17:44, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a
svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~,
and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean
changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1
I
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:32:07AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 19:23, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Correct. As the very first sentence of its manpage says:
Check and list dependencies of development library packages
He? IMHO this is neither right nor common practice.
The
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:41:31AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:29:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:41:31AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:07:38PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:29:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:41:31AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08,
Am 29.06.2010 10:15, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
-SHLIBS_VERSION := 4:0.6~svn20100505-1
+SHLIBS_VERSION := 4:0.6~
Above is not a tightening, but a loosing up, I believe.
Technically, yes. I think 4:0.6-1~ would be better.
- Fabian
___
Am 29.06.2010 12:38, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Hmm, just curious (I won't waste time on discussing further): is it
tightening by some other aspect than technical?
It's philosophical, but by removing the svn revision, which points to
a date a few weeks before the release, from the version
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 01:05:18PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 12:38, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Hmm, just curious (I won't waste time on discussing further): is it
tightening by some other aspect than technical?
It's philosophical, but by removing the svn revision, which
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:05:18 (CEST), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 12:38, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Hmm, just curious (I won't waste time on discussing further): is it
tightening by some other aspect than technical?
It's philosophical, but by removing the svn revision, which
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:33:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
- Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with
librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends
from ffmpeg?
I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies.
AFAIUI, this does
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 01:39:40PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:05:18 (CEST), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Reinhard, let's do the next upload with 4:0.6-1~ and be done with it.
I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough
for this. If you
Am 29.06.2010 14:26, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
I suggest to then state in changelog that it is loosened, not
tightened, as I believe most users expect the technical aspect when
reading such notes.
I't not even mentioned in debian/changelog and I have just corrected
the shlibs version in git,
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:15:35PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:33:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
- Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with
librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends
from ffmpeg?
I recommend to use
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 14:51:46 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:15:35PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:33:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
- Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with
librtmp-dev depending on
Am 29.06.2010 13:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that d-devlibdeps
simply prints out the corresponding -dev packages for the libraries
that the given shared library is linked
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for
this. If you want to change it, go ahead.
I'll change it, just to make sure...
If the objective
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:57:59PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 13:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that d-devlibdeps
simply prints out the corresponding -dev
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for
this. If you want to change it,
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
I don't have a strong opinion
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com
wrote:
Am 29.06.2010
20 matches
Mail list logo
