BTW feel free to NMU imagemagick during a short break I take in the
next two days.
Bastien
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:22 PM, roucaries bastien
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, roucaries bastien
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:28 PM, roucaries bastien
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
>>> wrote:
On 09/12/16 22:37, roucaries basti
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, roucaries bastien
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:28 PM, roucaries bastien
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
>> wrote:
>>> On 09/12/16 22:37, roucaries bastien wrote:
control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/ImageMagick/
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:28 PM, roucaries bastien
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> wrote:
>> On 09/12/16 22:37, roucaries bastien wrote:
>>> control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/issues/320
>>>
>>> Dear realease team,
>>>
>>> What is
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
> On 09/12/16 22:37, roucaries bastien wrote:
>> control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/issues/320
>>
>> Dear realease team,
>>
>> What is the next step?
>
> In which version was the ABI break introduced?
It
On 09/12/16 22:37, roucaries bastien wrote:
> control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/issues/320
>
> Dear realease team,
>
> What is the next step?
In which version was the ABI break introduced?
In general I would prefer the change to be reverted, but depending on how l
control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/issues/320
Dear realease team,
What is the next step?
Thank you
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Control: reopen 846385
> Control: severity 846385 serious
>
> tl;dr: yes, this is clearly an ABI break.
>
> O
Control: reopen 846385
Control: severity 846385 serious
tl;dr: yes, this is clearly an ABI break.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 at 15:55:02 +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
> * struct _DrawInfo (1) is not a problem from a C point of view because
> it should be set and destry by API function. It is a opaque
-- Forwarded message --
From: Antonio Terceiro
Date: Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Pkg-gmagick-im-team] Bug#846385: imagemagick: Potential
ABI break upstream (without SONAME change)
To: roucaries bastien
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , 846...@bugs.debian.org
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016
9 matches
Mail list logo
