On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 10:41:32PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> > The advantage of the libkpathsea4-dev -> libkpathsea-dev is that the
> > packages build depending on libkpathsea-dev will automatically move to
> > libkpathsea4.
>
> Only *if* they are rebuilt. I have not checked it (If you'd do this it
> would help us more than this discussion), but from my experience with
> other bug reports related to the teTeX-2.0.2->3.0 transition, at least
> 50% of the affected packages are basically unmaintained.
Why exactly do you refuse to ask debian-release for a binary rebuild of
the affacted packages?
> > I'd also have thought that implemting my porposal was trivial enough
> > that it's not worth sending a patch, but in case you need one it is
> > below.
>
> You forgot the promise.
I've already proven your statements of possible API problems and other
problems as wrong in this bug, so if it makes you happy I do hereby
promise that I can take care of any problems only caused by the
libkpathsea3->libkpathsea4 change since they are nearly impossible.
> Regards, Frank
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
