On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:51:17AM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> I'm unsure what would be the best solution here. CTAPI is highly
> unlikely to change, so the approach taken by upstream authors to simply
> ship a definition in-tree is not all that bad. The alternative would be
> creating a package "ctapi-dev" that contains a single header file, and
> using that.
I would strongly welcome this solution - but some upstream has to care
about this.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100215071936.ga16...@an3as.eu
