On 11 March 2009 at 15:35, Norbert Preining wrote:
| On Mi, 11 M r 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > but I DO care about the fact that Debian unstable as a whole is FTBFS
| >
| > which I don't find too acceptable. Now, stuff happens, Norbert is on it,
and
| > hopefully this will be over s
Hi Josselin,
On Do, 12 Mär 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Are you volunteering to do this work in the future for other library
> transitions?
No need. If you (the devs of poppler) just warn rdepends on imminent
upload and send a pre-version for testing we can react. Fixing poppler
patches did be
Le jeudi 12 mars 2009 à 10:08 +0200, Riku Voipio a écrit :
> Perhaps it should be assumed by default that soname transitions require
> source changes, _unless_ proven otherwise. And proving is really simple -
> just try recompiling all reverse dependencies against the new library.
Are you voluntee
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:55:52PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> The problem is, of course, defining the “well-defined policy”. For most
> libraries an early removal has no big consequences. It would have been
> tempting to have guessed that there wouldn’t be any for poppler either,
> because the f
> As the current "RM Master" ;) I see two realistic possibilities:
> 1) Someone just write me a mail if I should some part of the cruft
> report or ping me on IRC. This would of course scale to a few cases
> only.
Inacceptable. The latest cruft report was done by me for example. Having
someone ma
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:55:52PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > > Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
> > > libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
> > > documentation. Was there
On Mi, 11 Mär 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> but I DO care about the fact that Debian unstable as a whole is FTBFS
>
> which I don't find too acceptable. Now, stuff happens, Norbert is on it, and
> hopefully this will be over soon.
texlive-bin 2007.dfsg.2-5 with a fixed patch (that un
On 11 March 2009 at 12:55, Adeodato Sim wrote:
| > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > > Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
| > > libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
| > > documentation. Was there a reason?
|
|
On Mi, 11 Mär 2009, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> because the fact that decrufting poppler would render texlive uninstallable,
Some forewarning to the Debian TeX Team would have been helpful.
Especially since the FTBFS is not easy to circumvent because that
stu poppler people have simply removed any
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
> > libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
> > documentation. Was there a reason?
Uploading libfoo2 and making libfoo1 disappear are actually do
10 matches
Mail list logo
