On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:34:07PM -0800, David Schleef wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:18:57PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Having this bug fixed in unstable doesn't do us any good for sarge if it's
> > been replaced by a package that can't be built from source. Why does
> > swf-player ne
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:18:57PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Having this bug fixed in unstable doesn't do us any good for sarge if it's
> been replaced by a package that can't be built from source. Why does
> swf-player need liboil0.3?
Older versions of swfdec used liboil-0.2. The current v
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:41:22PM -0800, David Schleef wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:03:29PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > > These are all fixed in 0.3.3-1, which is blocked from even making it
> > > into sid because liboil0.3 is in NEW.
> >
> > So should swf-player be removed from sarge?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:03:29PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > These are all fixed in 0.3.3-1, which is blocked from even making it
> > into sid because liboil0.3 is in NEW.
>
> So should swf-player be removed from sarge?
No, why? It's fixed in sid.
(Did I put the wrong tag on it?)
dave...
> These are all fixed in 0.3.3-1, which is blocked from even making it
> into sid because liboil0.3 is in NEW.
So should swf-player be removed from sarge?
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
5 matches
Mail list logo