On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:45:01PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > It's a 2.3, at least from what agg/copying says. > > > Seriously someone should consider an AGG fork from 2.4 > > which is something maybe mapserver folks already did. > > Francesco, do you know if such a fork has been officially announced, with > proper releases and such? > It might make sense to provide a separate package (but this is surely > post-Squeeze) to link against. So that we don't need N copies of libagg spread > around the archive. >
Current committers are simply working on the 2.4 tree, due to obvious license concerns. You can simply check https://agg.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/agg and consult the mailing list to check. Maxim has simply lost interest and current working happens onto a specific 2.4 branch. I wonder if maintaining 2.5 in Debian makes sense. Also notes that agg is essentially a template library, so distributing shlibs is a non-sense, because instances are defined by use. That's the reason to have a -dev package only. There's nothing like a 'system wide' library in proper sense. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
