Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay. I will release gtk+1.1.5 and glib1.1.5 source/binary packages
> soon.
Great.
> What should I do about the old gtk+1.1 and glib source packages
> whose names don't match the new setup? Should they be removed from
> the archives as soon as no mor
> "James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> dpkg doesn't do reverse dependency checking[1]; if I have
James> say foo installed which depends on libgtk1.1 (= 1.1.5-1),
James> it'll happily let me install libgtk1.1 1.1.6-1, silently
James> breaking foo.
James
On Sun, 22 Nov, 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> GTK+ and GLib have a somewhat curious developmental situation; they release
> versions that are binary (and source, sometimes) incompatible with
> previous releases with each developmental 1.1.x release.
>
> Version 1.1.5 of both GTK+ and GLib have ju
Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Version 1.1.5 of both GTK+ and GLib have just been released. I have
> received complaints about packages compiled against, say GTK+ 1.1.2,
> breaking as soon as 1.1.3 is installed. Should I:
>
> 1) make the source and binary names for the new packages
GTK+ and GLib have a somewhat curious developmental situation; they release
versions that are binary (and source, sometimes) incompatible with
previous releases with each developmental 1.1.x release.
Version 1.1.5 of both GTK+ and GLib have just been released. I have
received complaints about pac
5 matches
Mail list logo
