On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:54:14PM +0200, Giulio Paci wrote: > Il 09/08/2013 17:18, Sergei Golovan ha scritto: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Giulio Paci <giuliop...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto: > >>> Why "tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa" is bad for you? > >> > >> Because all the programs that use snack will have to add all the backends > >> as alternatives, in order to support them. > >> Right now there are only two backends and there has not been any activity > >> upstream since a long time, so it is unlikely that there will be any other > >> backends in the near > >> future, but the situation may change. > > > > I guess, after there will be the third backend, say for pulseaudio, > > I'll split out the ALSA and OSS dependent libraries into libsnack-oss > > and libsnack-alsa (and libsnack-pulseaudio for the third one) and make > > tcl-snack depend on all of them as alternatives. For now "tcl-snack | > > tcl-snack-alsa" seems good enough for me. > > It seems not for me and apparently it seems not for Ron Lee as well (See > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659974#37). > > Moreover in that thread you proposed to use dependency on the unversioned > libsnack2 in order to solve the issue with wavesurfer > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659974#57 > and now you are changing the package without offering any similar possibility.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see a problem at all? The snack packages have been renamed to fit in with the naming policy that the tcl folk have, but they all still provide libsnack2 ... Which is what wavesurfer in jessie/sid depends on, so any of them will satisfy it. Won't they? Cheers, Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
