Just wanted to upload a straw man example of what I'm talking about:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hiredis/hiredis_0.13.1-1.dsc
And the result of installing this package over the top of an existing
libhiredis0.10 install:
https://gist.github.com/thomaslee/c97582fd4a7ba80f9abf
Che
Hey Andrey, thanks for the advice:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:09:10PM -0700, Tom Lee wrote:
> > By and large that's an easy & mostly mechanical change, but both
> > libhiredis0.10 and libhiredis0.13 want to install the libhiredis.so.0
>
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:09:10PM -0700, Tom Lee wrote:
> By and large that's an easy & mostly mechanical change, but both
> libhiredis0.10 and libhiredis0.13 want to install the libhiredis.so.0
> symlink (each pointing to one of libhiredis.so.0.{10,13}).
From the upstream perspective this looks l
Silly question, but I need a quick sanity-check:
hiredis upstream has bumped their SONAME from 0.10 to 0.13. From what I
understand, this means the libhiredis0.10 binary package needs to be
renamed to libhiredis0.13.
By and large that's an easy & mostly mechanical change, but both
libhiredis0.10
Your message dated Tue, 05 May 2015 16:29:16 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: lightmdeditor/1.0.3-1 [ITP]
has caused the Debian Bug report #769375,
regarding RFS: lightmdeditor/1.0.3-1 [ITP]
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
5 matches
Mail list logo
