Hello,
Paul Gevers, on ven. 03 nov. 2017 11:35:06 +0100, wrote:
> The current package of python-sphinxbase contains¹ a (unstripped!)
> static library. Is that on purpose?
No.
> If not, do you see a good reason to keep it (stripped or unstripped)?
For python bindings, nope :)
> I suggest we rem
Hi Samuel
On 03-11-17 11:35, Paul Gevers wrote:
> The current package of python-sphinxbase contains¹ a (unstripped!)
> static library. Is that on purpose? If not, do you see a good reason to
> keep it (stripped or unstripped)? I suggest we remove it from the
> package, but I must admit I don't kno
Hi Samuel,
The current package of python-sphinxbase contains¹ a (unstripped!)
static library. Is that on purpose? If not, do you see a good reason to
keep it (stripped or unstripped)? I suggest we remove it from the
package, but I must admit I don't know if that breaks the binding.
Paul
¹ https:
Paul Gevers, on ven. 03 nov. 2017 10:45:46 +0100, wrote:
> Other than ENOTIME, is there a reason why you never added a symbols file
> to the sphinxbase package?
No other reason :)
Samuel
Hi Samuel,
Other than ENOTIME, is there a reason why you never added a symbols file
to the sphinxbase package?
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
On 03-11-17 09:45, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I'd say call them 0.8+5prealpha+1 and 1.0.8+5prealpha+1
I'll do that then.
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi Samuel,
On 03-11-17 09:41, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Paul Gevers, on ven. 03 nov. 2017 09:28:25 +0100, wrote:
>> Current versions:
>> sphinxbase 0.8+5prealpha
>> sphinxtrain 1.0.8+5prealpha
>>
>> New versions:
>> both 5prealpha
>
> IIRC, that 5prealpha version is what I pa
Samuel Thibault, on ven. 03 nov. 2017 09:41:27 +0100, wrote:
> Paul Gevers, on ven. 03 nov. 2017 09:28:25 +0100, wrote:
> > Current versions:
> > sphinxbase 0.8+5prealpha
> > sphinxtrain 1.0.8+5prealpha
> >
> > New versions:
> > both5prealpha
>
> IIRC, that 5prealpha version is w
Hello,
Paul Gevers, on ven. 03 nov. 2017 09:28:25 +0100, wrote:
> Current versions:
> sphinxbase0.8+5prealpha
> sphinxtrain 1.0.8+5prealpha
>
> New versions:
> both 5prealpha
IIRC, that 5prealpha version is what I packaged as 0.8+5prealpha and
1.0.8+5prealpha, i.e. I considered th
Hi,
I am working on providing new upstream releases in Debian of sphinxbase
and sphinxtrain. However, the upstream version looks weird to me, and I
wonder if it is smart to just take it over. I won't like it if the next
upstream version requires us to add an epoch.
Current versions:
sphinxbase
10 matches
Mail list logo
