Hi Jaromír (and others),
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:18:38AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 12:06:21PM +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
I just notice that jamin 0.97.14~cvs~81203-2 is not installing it's
runtime dependency swh-plugins.
Should I fill bugreport or just inform this way is fine?
Probably best to file a bug so it doesn't get lost.
I agree with Eric generally: Best to always file a bugreport when you
notice an bug, no matter how tiny: It is quite easy to close again if it
turns out to be a non-issue (if you ever have the sad experience of
being yelled at for filing a wrong bugreport then just ignore it:
bugreports are generally highly appreciated, despite a few developers
misunderstanding their purpose. :-)
...but this particular one is hereby on my radar:
I am to blame for recently lowering the dependency on swh-plugins to a
recommendation, with other LDASP plugins fullfilling same.
Are the swh-plugins _always_ needed for _all_ uses of JAMin?
Are perhaps _some_ LADSPA plugin _always_ needed for _all_ uses?
Kind regards,
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
