So my transitional library package was rejected (rightfully so). Here is a different approach: <slangasek> I'm thinking about providing transitional plugin packages instead of a transitional lib package since the plugin renames are actually entirely gratuitous, AFAICS <slangasek> they were first renamed to avoid collision with pwlib, which is still in the archive the second rename was just to keep pace with the soname so, either providing dummy packages for all the plugins (but there are a lot), or just revert the name change for the plugins... <slangasek> mvo: ok. I have a slight preference for reverting the package names, instead of carrying extra dummy packages, even though those names will be mismatched; what do you think? <mvo> slangasek: hm, if we revert back to the old names, what about already installed libpt2.6.1-plugins-v4l etc ?
-- Upgrade from 3.0.1-1ubuntu2 to 3.2.0-0ubuntu1 held back https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/353768 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://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
