On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:50:55AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:42:29AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:40:35PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > > uploaded, sitting in the NEW queue.
> > Now in incoming. :)
> I don't suppose there is any
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:42:29AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:40:35PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > uploaded, sitting in the NEW queue.
> Now in incoming. :)
I don't suppose there is any chance of the rest of NEW being
looked at? libgeda has been waiting 2 wee
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:40:35PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:58:37PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:09:23PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Yes, except for the part where it's harder to keep broken package
> > > combinations from
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:58:37PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:09:23PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Yes, except for the part where it's harder to keep broken package
> > combinations from trickling into testing. :)
>
> i will upload in a couple of days at max.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:35:46PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:13:57PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > > - Drop the SSL-less variant of the library, which was not present in curl
> > > 7.15.5; AFAICS, there is no use case where a user of curl *needs* to
> > > *
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:13:57PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > - Drop the SSL-less variant of the library, which was not present in curl
> > 7.15.5; AFAICS, there is no use case where a user of curl *needs* to *not*
> > have SSL support, so this split seems to be unnecessary overhead.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:09:23PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, except for the part where it's harder to keep broken package
> combinations from trickling into testing. :)
this could be achieved blocking curl in unstable until all the packages
depending on the broken libcurl4 are rebuilt...
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:13:57PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> I should have figured out the change to symbol versioning was not
> required at all... so I agree in reverting it.
Great!
> > - Revert the Debian package names to the curl 7.15.5 versions. Because
> > compatibility has been r
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:37:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Domenico,
Hi Steve,
> On looking at the curl package, I've come to understand that the symbol
> versioning in place in this library is the result of a Debian-local patch.
> That's great news, because it suggests a solution to t
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:01:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Revised patch; the previous version failed to build due to wrong file lists
> for the -dev packages.
> Off to test that the packages work sanely when installed.
... which they don't, because I got the dh_link syntax wrong.
The att
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:05:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Patch attached.
> :)
Revised patch; the previous version failed to build due to wrong file lists
for the -dev packages.
Off to test that the packages work sanely when installed.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Gi
Patch attached.
:)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:37:42PM -0700, Stev
Hi Domenico,
We talked a while back about the curl transition, and about how upstream's
change from libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4 is gratuitously painful for us in
light of the large number of reverse dependencies.
The libcurl transition has at this point gotten tangled with soname
transitions in
13 matches
Mail list logo
