On Tuesday 01 November 2005 8:22 pm, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > > AFAICT libpisock-dev (0.12-pre5) does not actually depend on libpisock++ > > at all.
(I should have said 0.12-pre4 there, sorry for any confusion.) > Where do you have a 0.12-pre5 version? Current CVS, but libpisock++ was removed from CVS 4 months ago: Mon Jun 6 15:03:46 2005 UTC (4 months, 3 weeks ago) by desrod Removing libpisock++ from the tree. Nobody is using it and I've checked the mailing lists going back to 1996 to confirm. If it is needed by anyone, we can recreate it as a language binding in the future. Hopefully everyone is using libpisock by now anyway. The GUI application authors have confirmed that they are using libpisock as well, and not libpisock++. That was prior to the release of pre4: Wed, 06/15/2005 - 15:29 pilot-link-0.12.0-pre4.tar.gz contains no libpisock++ directory. Looks like libpisock++0 and libpisock++0c2 could be dropped from Debian when 0.12 eventually replaces 0.11.8 in sarge. > > I can't proceed with even an upload of my pilot-qof package into > > experimental with libpisock-dev dependent on libpisock++0 > > as it halts a clean build. > > You should not depend on experimental to build your package but use > unstable only. Unless you really need pilot-link from experimental? Unfortunately, yes, I do. I need 0.12-pre1 or later > I will try tp upload a new version to experimental soon. Thanks. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpTxG1kumFlq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
