sponsors ACK for the sync.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https:
Build log of libgdamm3.0 3.0.0-2 on hardy.
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_3.0.0-2.buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12767903/libgdamm3.0_3.0.0-2.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notificati
The only rdepends for this package is glom and I plan on submitting a
new glom package that includes a new upstream release and builds against
the new libgdamm3.0 package (Bug 204039).
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received t
Please sync libgdamm3.0 3.0.0-2 from Debian unstable. The 3.0.0 release
is considered a stable release and would be a good addition to hardy.
After the binary package name change that took place in
libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1, the names of the ubuntu and debian packages
are the same.
The motu-rel
I'll leave this one open since it has already received two ACKs and been
approved by the motu-release team. Thanks.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
>
> Oops, I forgot the soversion bump between 2.9.82 and 3.0.0. Sorry.
> Fixing right away...
Excellent, thanks!
Cheers,
Stefan.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
Axk #2 and approved. someone mark confirmed please.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bu
Should I keep this bug open or submit a new one for a debian unstable
sync request?
Also, once we sync, I will make sure the glom package is updated to
build against the new version of the library. So far, glom is the only
package the reverse depends on libgdam3.0.
Chris.
--
Request: Upgrade l
StefanPotyra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:02:28 Deng Xiyue wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> They should be "Conflicts/Replaces"ed, because they have the same
>> contents.
>
> Erm, the *library* package mustn't have overlapping files for different
> SONAME's, and it look
Hi,
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:02:28 Deng Xiyue wrote:
[..]
>
> They should be "Conflicts/Replaces"ed, because they have the same
> contents.
Erm, the *library* package mustn't have overlapping files for different
SONAME's, and it looks like the unstable package correctly doesn't:
dpkg -c l
Oh, indeed, there should be only conflicts/replaces against the
-dev/-doc package and not against the library package. Deng, can you fix
this in unstable? Thanks!
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification b
Chris Brotherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a question regarding the debian package. In the control file,
> there is the following entry for the libgdamm3.0-10 binary package:
>
> --
> Package: l
I have a question regarding the debian package. In the control file,
there is the following entry for the libgdamm3.0-10 binary package:
--
Package: libgdamm3.0-10
Architecture: any
Conflicts: libgdamm3.0-
Looks like it's another soname bump (among other changes).
** Attachment added: "Debian changes"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12736783/debian.changes
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because y
yes, and I guess we should do so. Since it's the stable release, I'll
give ACK #1 on this w.o. needing to revisit diffstat etc.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
B
libgdamm3.0 3.0.0-1 has already be accepted into Debian repository
pool. Don't know whether it's still possible to begin the sync with
Ubuntu?
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a me
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu2.buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12719870/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu2.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member
Thanks, Daniel. Here is an update package with conflicts/replaces
fields for the -dev and -doc binary packages, but without the
unnecessary transitional packages.
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu2.diff.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12719824/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu2.diff
The transitional packages are not necessary.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists
I suggest that we stick with our 2.9.82 version of libgdamm3.0 and then
sync after hardy is released to the 3.0.0 version in debian. The debian
version has a number of changes and includes a soname change.
To address the above problems, I included conflicts/replaces fields for
the libgdamm3.0-dev
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu2.buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12712399/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu2.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member
I should be able to address this issue this evening after work.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing lis
Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We should merge the change ASAP.
>
Now it's sitting on Debian NEW queue.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, whi
We should merge the change ASAP.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ LC_ALL=C sudo apt-get install -f
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Correcting dependencies... Done
> The following packages were automatically installed and are n
Putting sponsoring of bug 202874 on hold until this is fixed.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ LC_ALL=C sudo apt-get install -f
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Correcting dependencies... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
libgdamm-3.0-dev libgdamm-3.0-8
Use
Chris Brotherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Take a look here: http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/hardy/libgdamm3.0
>
> The new package names are in hardy (scheduled to be released on April
> 24th).
>
Thanks for the info. I've changed accordingly in SVN. You can check it
here:
http://svn.deb
Take a look here: http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/hardy/libgdamm3.0
The new package names are in hardy (scheduled to be released on April
24th).
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are
Chris Brotherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, you have it backwards. Initially, ubuntu used the
> libgdamm-3.0-* naming scheme, but we changed it to match debians
> (libgdamm3.0-*). So you should not have to change the binary package
> names in debian.
>
Has this already happened? B
Actually, you have it backwards. Initially, ubuntu used the
libgdamm-3.0-* naming scheme, but we changed it to match debians
(libgdamm3.0-*). So you should not have to change the binary package
names in debian.
Murray,
You don't need to worry about the package names (other than the sonames).
U
IIRC, Debian changed the naming to match 2.9.81, while upstream changed
to match Ubuntu naming in 2.9.82. I'd say the current naming (with '-')
is reasonable. Ubuntu has a larger user base than Debian, as glom has
entered Ubuntu for some time. It's reasonable to match the Ubuntu
naming, and it's
> Murray Cumming has just released libgdamm3.0 stable release 3.0.0,
which bumps soversion to 10, and retains the '-' in shared library name.
By the way. I have never heard of any problem with the shared library
name, or understood why Debian/Ubuntu might want to rename their
packages to add or re
That is great to hear. I am the one who worked on the most recent
package version in ubuntu. Let me know if there is anything I can help
with.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a m
Murray Cummings has just release libgdamm3.0 stable release 3.0.0, which
bumps soversion to 10, and retain the '-' in shared library name. So I
guess there'll be no needs to change package name for ubuntu. I'll try
to refine the Debian package and upload in a few days (since I need
sponsoring bef
Hi, I'm one of the Debian maintainers of libgdamm3.0, and I'd like to
sync with ubuntu work. I guess I'll add the proper Conflicts/Replaces
for ubuntu to make it easier. According to Murray the stable version of
libgdamm3.0 will probably be released in several weeks, so I wish the
full sync will
** Changed in: libgdamm3.0 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bug
Ack #2 again just to avoid potential confusion.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@li
Sure, I'm still ok with the FFe. ACK.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu
With all of the above changes, I assume that I need two more ACKs to be
approved. If not, let me know and I will subscribe u-u-s.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubunt
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.installog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12529125/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.installog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a memb
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12528681/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member
Updated package.
Changelog:
libgdamm3.0 (2.9.82-0ubuntu1) hardy; urgency=low
* New upstream release. (LP #190744)
* Updated Standards-Version to 3.7.3
* Added get-orig-source target to debian/rules.
* Updated soname
* Renamed binary packages from libgdamm-3.0-* to libgdamm3.0-*
Cesare, exactly :).
And removing the old binary is a standard task of archive admins, which
I assume it will be done once the new binary package gets processed in
binary new, so we wouldn't even need to request this.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchp
Which, in practice for Chris, means there is no need to have a dummy
package nor a replaces/conflicts dependency, only the package name
change will do, glom will have to be built/depends against the new
library and then we can ask archive to remove the old libgdamm, right?
Thanks for the explanatio
I think I'm with you. Let me try to write what I understand. On a user system
there is foo (in package foo-1), which links to libfoo.so.1 (in package
libfoo1-1).
Now we have a new libfoo with a different soname, and so we have libfoo.so.2 in
package libfoo2-1 and foo in package foo-2 which links
Hi,
Am Samstag 08 März 2008 23:09:40 schrieb Cesare Tirabassi:
> >Since debian currently ships the binary libgdamm3.0-8 (probably, to avoid
> > ABI breakage by using a different binary package name)
>
> No, they just changed the name to have it similar to the old 1.3 branch.
> They have not yet pa
>Since debian currently ships the binary libgdamm3.0-8 (probably, to avoid ABI
>breakage by using a different binary package name)
No, they just changed the name to have it similar to the old 1.3 branch.
They have not yet packaged the new version (where we have seen the ABI
breakage).
>ubuntu ha
Hi Chris,
Am Samstag 08 März 2008 04:27:50 schrieb Chris Brotherton:
> Stefan,
>
> Sorry. I wasn't clear in my comment above. I used the
> conflicts/replaces fields for the binary package name change and not for
> the soname change.
>
> For example:
>
> Package: libgdamm3.0-9
> Provides: libgdam
Stefan,
Sorry. I wasn't clear in my comment above. I used the
conflicts/replaces fields for the binary package name change and not for
the soname change.
For example:
Package: libgdamm3.0-9
Provides: libgdamm-3.0-9
Conflicts: libgdamm-3.0-9 (<< ${source:Version})
Replaces: libgdamm-3.0-9 (<< $
Hi,
I guess I need to clear up some things here. Let's consider the upgrade
path between between ABI incompatible libraries: The user has A
installed, which depends on libfoo1. libfoo gets changed in an
incompatible way and produces the binary package libfoo2 (in correlation
to the SONAME). Having
Updated to include binary package rename and transitional packages. I
have included the Conflicts and Replaces package fields for the sake of
completeness.
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.diff.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12510726/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.diff.gz
--
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12510727/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member
The upstream changelog certainly looks like it includes a bunch of
fixes.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs m
I guess this needs to go through
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-
Daniel,
I am not sure if this need to be an exception. It can probably wait
until Hardy+1. If you want to unsubscribe u-u-s, I can resubscribe them
when hardy+1 is ready.
Thanks,
Chris.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You recei
diff.gz for updated package.
Thanks.
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.81-0ubuntu1.diff.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12126610/libgdamm3.0_2.9.81-0ubuntu1.diff.gz
** Changed in: libgdamm3.0 (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Chris Brotherton (protonchris) => (unassigned)
Status: In Progre
I don't recall and am not in a position to check if this package has any
conffiles or not. If it does, they may need to be moved to a location or
renamed based on the package names. There is a recipe on wiki.debian.org
for how to manage this in preinst/postinst if it's needed.
--
Request: Up
Cesare,
Thanks for this info.
Chris.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubunt
Chris,
to make the transition it is needed to:
1) Change your source package so that it provides binaries named like those in
Debian. This is mainly in debian/control and some of the debhelper files
(install etc.). You can see this easily by diffing the ubuntu and debian
packages.
Note that th
Getting a name change done now will make the next LTS-LTS upgrade
easier.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs m
My only concern is the name change they have made in Debian for the binary
packages. Since we will eventually sync it could make sense to be prepared
already for that, and we could make the transition now.
If however you guys don't think we should bother now and postpone it to
intrepid than I'm
Unsubscribed Ubuntu Sponsors for universe from this bug until motu-
release gave another ACK.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu
If this new package is accepted, I'll submit a new bug for a glom
rebuild.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
Please let me know if you guys would like to see anything else.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing lis
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0-2.9.82.installog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12352098/libgdamm3.0-2.9.82.installog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12352046/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member
** Attachment added: "changelog.diff"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12351958/changelog.diff
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubun
Updated package for version 2.9.82 with soname bump.
** Attachment added: "libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.diff.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12351949/libgdamm3.0_2.9.82-0ubuntu1.diff.gz
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You rece
Thanks, Murray.
I'll put an updated package up in the next couple of days.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
Thanks. I have applied that and released libgdamm 2.82.
Note that the *mm libraries don't bother changing the .so version name
usually. GTK+ doesn't change it either.
This is because
- It's really hard to get right, because the version string in configure.ac is
so disconnected from the eventual
@Murray, above is the promised patch against configure.in, that will
bump the SONAME to the next version (it does not set a new upstream
version number though).
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification bec
** Attachment added: "upstream soname bump against r1309"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12339989/from.r1309.bump.so.version.patch
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ub
Murray,
What to you think? Are you up for a new release with a soname bump?
Chris.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
u
Thanks for adding that output. Indeed I was surprised: seems like I
recalled wrongly, and c++ encodes the namespace of the enum in the
symbol (for method signatures). Hence there are removed symbols, and
thus the ABI is broken as well.
This means, we cannot sync the package as is. The best solutio
** Attachment added: "Output from check-symbols"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12282470/check-symbols.log
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subs
well, I guess I don't insist on having a diff of the symbols in this
specific case.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubu
glom and libglom0 build and run against the new version of libgdamm3.0
without issue. If there is still interest in a symbols diff, I can
provide that tomorrow.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification be
Ack #2 and approved.
** Changed in: libgdamm3.0 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
-
ok, so the public API changed. However since only glom uses it as
package so far, and libglom0 doesn't have any rdepends (beside glom), I
guess this could be fixed easily, either by modifying the current
package or by syncing (rather merging to ensure a sane upgrade) from
debian, in case it shouldn
> b) check, if these enums are part of the public API or just used
internally inside libgdamm3.0?
These enums are part of the public API. (I am the upstream maintainer.)
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notifi
Hm... if the changelog indicates that the ABI stays the same. However
it's worth investigating this:
> * libgda/src/connectionevent.hg: Put the enums inside the Gnome::Gda
> namespace instead of
> inside Gnome::.
Can you
a) attach a diff of the symbols between the old and the new version
Any impact on glom0 and libglom0?
Note that there is now a package available from sid, so we could just sync.
In this case, we would need to change all rdepends to be compatible with the
naming change made by debian though.
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.
Firstly, please do not set to confirmed for feature freeze exception
bugs. The bug gets set to confirmed when two acks are given to update
the package.
As to that, it does appear to be very much a bugfix release, so +1 from
me.
** Changed in: libgdamm3.0 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => New
** Attachment added: "Install Log"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12218805/install.log
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
-
** Attachment added: "buildlog"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12218802/libgdamm3.0-2.9.81.buildlog
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
** Attachment added: "diffstat"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12218800/libgdamm3.0-diffstat.txt
--
Request: Upgrade libgdamm3.0 to upstream version 2.9.81
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/190744
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
Please consider a feature freeze exception for this package. This new
version of this software is mostly bugfixes (see changelog above) and
does not have significant new features or remove existing features
(soname stays the same). Only one package depends on this package, so
an upgrade is low r
88 matches
Mail list logo
