Hi, > So there will be other similar cases and I doubt the ftpmasters will > reject them. Their concerns should not forbid us to do the right thing > in terms of library packaging.
Another argument against this solution was the need for the package to go twice in NEW (1 with the creation of the -common binary, 1 when it will be dropped with HAL support), x2 because there are 2 different versions in unstable and experimental. >> Finally, there's also the option of dropping the FDI file entirely, >> given we plan to get rid of HAL sooner rather than later. I'm not sure >> about the status of non-Linux architectures wrt libimobiledevice, so the >> lack of HAL support there may be a moot point. > > Several of the reverse build-dependencies of libimobiledevice-dev use it > with an architecture restriction [linux-any] but not all of them. I don't > know how important that FDI file is in the grand scheme of the library. The only reason is to add support for Amarok which still depends on HAL (see bug #615107). If Amarok don't need it anymore, the FDI can be dropped completely. but, I'm still ensure when / if this will be done, I can't find the proper bug report about the removal of HAL in Amarok. My only information are from this : http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=184744 I had the hope that this will come fast enough to not stay in this situation too long. Regards, Julien Lavergne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
