Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:52:51PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: >> Reintroducing the libaspell15 could cause problems with > /usr/bin/aspell, >> since it actually goes outside the C API of libaspell and uses C++ >> linkage to some symbols. I "fixed" this bug (#307481) by making >> aspell-bin (or now just aspell) depend on the Source-Version of >> libaspell. > >> However, that fix is not in the stable package of aspell. In stable, >> aspell-bin just depends on libaspell15 (>= 0.60), so a partial upgrade >> of just libaspell15 would break aspell-bin. I suppose I could make > the >> new libaspell15 conflict with the old aspell-bin, but that's rather >> clumsy and could make upgrades even more awkward. > >> I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be. I'm sort of inclined >> to just stick with the transitioned libaspell15c2... > > Well, using libaspell15c2 will definitely cause some complexity on the > upgrade path from sarge to etch. I don't know how much having > libaspell15 > conflict with aspell-bin (<< $version) would do so. I suspect that it > would be substantially less since there are only four packages in sarge > which depend directly on aspell-bin or aspell, vs. 61 packages which > depend > on libaspell15 -- at a minimum, the worst-case scenario when conflicting > with aspell-bin (<< $version) looks substantially better.
OK, very well then, I'll undo the GCC 4 transition for libaspell15. BTW, does anyone familiar with gettext want to send me a patch for RC bug #316666? Upstream said he plans to make a new release with an upgrade to gettext 0.14.5 sometime this week, but I haven't heard anything else from him. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
