On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:39:07AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:08, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> We need not change anything now, just use a more meaningful tag
> than "" next time we want to bump.
I think t
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:08, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> > We need not change anything now, just use a more meaningful tag than
>> > "" next time we want to bump.
>
>> I think this makes most sense. (although it does require renaming
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:08:25PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
So long story short: it seems the only change reguired right now is the
updated jackd2 package with libjack-jackd2-dev "Provides: libjack-dev".
And that's already built and waiting for an upload on my system. Just
give me the "OK" i
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > We need not change anything now, just use a more meaningful tag than
> > "" next time we want to bump.
> I think this makes most sense. (although it does require renaming
> libjack-dev to libjack-jackd1-dev and making it Provide:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 14:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 01:36:09PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
1. Make all jack implementations provide: libjack-dev. This leaves
us with unversionable build-depends.
Whe
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 14:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 01:36:09PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>
>> 1. Make all jack implementations provide: libjack-dev. This leaves us
>> with unversionable build-depends.
>
> When versioning is needed, the requirement is either a cross
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Mo, Okt 25, 2010 at 17:20:58 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:33:45PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Unless there's really a need to discuss this in detail, I'd simply
> upload the new version today.
On Mo, Okt 25, 2010 at 17:20:58 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:33:45PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> > Unless there's really a need to discuss this in detail, I'd simply
>> > upload the new version today.
>>
>> so you don't care about unversionable build-depends? t
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:33:45PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Unless there's really a need to discuss this in detail, I'd simply
> > upload the new version today.
>
> so you don't care about unversionable build-depends? this means that not
> a single package in the archive can then do
>
On Mo, Okt 25, 2010 at 16:18:01 (CEST), Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 01:36:09PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> I'm not happy with the way currently we need to add alternative
>> build-depends on the different libjack implementations. Possible ways
>> out of this problem:
>>
>>
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 01:36:09PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> I'm not happy with the way currently we need to add alternative
> build-depends on the different libjack implementations. Possible ways
> out of this problem:
>
> 1. Make all jack implementations provide: libjack-dev. This leaves u
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 01:36:09PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
1. Make all jack implementations provide: libjack-dev. This leaves us
with unversionable build-depends.
When versioning is needed, the requirement is either a
cross-implementation or implementation-specific feature.
For implemen
I'm not happy with the way currently we need to add alternative
build-depends on the different libjack implementations. Possible ways
out of this problem:
1. Make all jack implementations provide: libjack-dev. This leaves us
with unversionable build-depends.
2. Create a new virtual package, like w
13 matches
Mail list logo
