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, R
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 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03
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 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffr
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 "depen
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 "dependencies of development library packages" are not necessarily
the -
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 Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath
>>> wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath 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
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath 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.
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 packages
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath 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 is to use a
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 against
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 li
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
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, s
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 want
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, thi
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...
uploading rtmpdump now sounds good, reuploading ffmpeg doesn't seem
important enough to me.
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, whic
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 point
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 numbe
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:05:24PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:15:13 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:09:20AM +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org
wrote:
The following commit has been merged in the master.snapshot branch:
commit 954f1
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:15:13 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:09:20AM +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org
> wrote:
>>The following commit has been merged in the master.snapshot branch:
>>commit 954f19598c736e041bd53bfb317205d8fef41c58
>>Author: Reinhard Tartler
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
___
pkg-multimedi
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:09:20AM +, siret...@users.alioth.debian.org
wrote:
The following commit has been merged in the master.snapshot branch:
commit 954f19598c736e041bd53bfb317205d8fef41c58
Author: Reinhard Tartler
Date: Tue Jun 29 10:08:40 2010 +0200
tighten shlibs version a bit,
25 matches
Mail list logo
