On Sunday, February 13, 2011 15:16:58 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 13/02/2011 alle 14.22 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto:
> > thus it's a lot more sane in the long term to assume that packages
> > support the latest rather than patching everyone (and being forced to
> > carry those c
On Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49:43 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 06:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > 4) What have we learned from libpng 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade? I'd just like to
> > be better informed.
>
> One way under consideration:
>
> We have been discussing about removing libpng
On Friday, February 11, 2011 01:49:43 PM Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > 4) What have we learned from libpng 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade? I'd just like to
> > be better informed.
>
> One way under consideration:
>
> We have been discussing about removing libpng.pc, libpng.so and
> unversioned headers from the
On 02/11/2011 05:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
> lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1.2 -> 1.4), I'd have
> some questions:
FWIW: For that upgrade I've not used lafile-fixer or anything like that
on my stable
On 02/11/2011 06:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not
> going to write something horribly wrong here.
>
> To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
> lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1
I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not
going to write something horribly wrong here.
To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1.2 -> 1.4), I'd have
some questions:
1) Are we going to have
