Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 00:15 +, Robin H. Johnson a écrit :
> The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
> from the tree, for the week ending 2010-05-09 23h59 UTC.
>
> Removals:
> gnome-base/gail 2010-05-03 22:28:28 ssuominen
Erm, when this
Hello guys,
as I'm sure some of you already experimented, the libpng upgrade didn't
exactly went smoothly on my chroots. Reason seems to be that libpng
usage is odd, it provides both libpng14.* and libpng.* files. Some
packages likes to use versioned libs while some other don't and it seems
to lea
Mask it. It's too new to adapt.
2010/5/11 Gilles Dartiguelongue
> Hello guys,
>
> as I'm sure some of you already experimented, the libpng upgrade didn't
> exactly went smoothly on my chroots. Reason seems to be that libpng
> usage is odd, it provides both libpng14.* and libpng.* files. Some
> p
On 05/10/2010 08:11 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> as I'm sure some of you already experimented, the libpng upgrade didn't
> exactly went smoothly on my chroots. Reason seems to be that libpng
> usage is odd, it provides both libpng14.* and libpng.* files. Some
> packages likes
On 5/10/10 7:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Should we advise users to do something like:
>
> find /usr/lib -name '*.la' | xargs sed -i -e '/^dep/s:-lpng12:-lpng14:'
lafilefixer --justfixit is easier to remember. Does it work equally well?
Paweł
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital sign
On 05/10/2010 08:34 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 5/10/10 7:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Should we advise users to do something like:
>>
>> find /usr/lib -name '*.la' | xargs sed -i -e '/^dep/s:-lpng12:-lpng14:'
>
> lafilefixer --justfixit is easier to remember. Does it work equally well
On 5/10/10 7:42 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 08:34 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> On 5/10/10 7:27 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Should we advise users to do something like:
>>>
>>> find /usr/lib -name '*.la' | xargs sed -i -e '/^dep/s:-lpng12:-lpng14:'
>>
>> lafilefixer --justfixi
On Monday 10 May 2010 13:27:48 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 08:11 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > * what is the recommended way to link to libpng (versioned lib or not)
> > * corollary to previous question, should we enforce link to versioned
> > lib only ?
>
> You get correct lib
On Monday 10 May 2010 20:22:28 Peng Hsin-shun wrote:
> Mask it. It's too new to adapt.
>
> 2010/5/11 Gilles Dartiguelongue
>
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > as I'm sure some of you already experimented, the libpng upgrade didn't
> > exactly went smoothly on my chroots. Reason seems to be that libpng
>
On 05/10/2010 10:52 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Monday 10 May 2010 20:22:28 Peng Hsin-shun wrote:
>> Mask it. It's too new to adapt.
Gentoo's ~arch is now fully migrated to libpng-1.4. So is Arch Linux,
btw. After releasing it in ~arch, we got some 3 valid bugs I've
immediately fixed, total bu
lafilefixer is not the right tool for this. At least it's current scope
is to replace usage of la files in la files, not to replace occurences
of one lib with another. Plus the problem of lafilefixer not changing
the hash of the installed files to match the one recorded in vdb is not
solved so I'd
On Monday 10 May 2010 23:09:22 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 10:52 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Monday 10 May 2010 20:22:28 Peng Hsin-shun wrote:
> >> Mask it. It's too new to adapt.
>
> Gentoo's ~arch is now fully migrated to libpng-1.4. So is Arch Linux,
> btw. After releasing it i
On Monday 10 May 2010 23:10:48 Markos Chandras wrote:
> provide a user friendly way to migrate to the new libpng without the need
> to spend so many hours digging around on which packages to rebuild.
if you're "digging around" then clearly you havent done the obvious and run
revdep-rebuild ? tha
Mike Frysinger writes:
> if you're "digging around" then clearly you havent done the obvious and run
> revdep-rebuild ? that is pretty user-friendly.
I do not know if I had done something wrong beforehand, but "simply"
running revdep-rebuild did not work for me - a number of packages failed
to
Le mardi 11 mai 2010 à 06:35 +0100, Graham Murray a écrit :
> Mike Frysinger writes:
>
> > if you're "digging around" then clearly you havent done the obvious and run
> > revdep-rebuild ? that is pretty user-friendly.
> I do not know if I had done something wrong beforehand, but "simply"
> run
On 05/11/2010 01:41 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> lafilefixer is not the right tool for this. At least it's current scope
> is to replace usage of la files in la files, not to replace occurences
> of one lib with another. Plus the problem of lafilefixer not changing
> the hash of the installed
16 matches
Mail list logo
