Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-16 Thread Loïc Minier
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > Because the majority of the packages don't need to also have > libmagickwand-dev and libmagickwand1 installed to be built. I was > thinking on the unnecessary packages that would be downloaded/installed > to build them. Well I think our first o

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-16 Thread Nelson A. de Oliveira
Hi Loïc! (I have removed -release for now) On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:36:43 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > http://people.debian.org/~naoliv/misc/imagemagick/507269/diff-control.txt > > Hmm why didn't you add the Provides to libmagickwand-dev (whic

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-09 Thread Luk Claes
Loïc Minier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: >> http://people.debian.org/~naoliv/misc/imagemagick/507269/diff-control.txt > > Hmm why didn't you add the Provides to libmagickwand-dev (which depends > on libmagickcore-dev and so pulls everything which used to be there)?

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-03 Thread Loïc Minier
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > http://people.debian.org/~naoliv/misc/imagemagick/507269/diff-control.txt Hmm why didn't you add the Provides to libmagickwand-dev (which depends on libmagickcore-dev and so pulls everything which used to be there)? > xine-lib - FTBFS (I thin

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-03 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rebuild of the reverse build dependencies of libmagick++9-dev, using > libmagick++-dev with the provides: > > = > With libmagick++-dev, libmagick++1, libmagickcore-dev, libmagickcore1, > libmagickwand-de

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-03 Thread Nelson A. de Oliveira
Hi! On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:13:35 +0100 Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this sound doable from your side? In particular, using Provides > is much easier than using transitional packages, so it should be less > effort for you. (Unless somebody has spotted that it won't work, in > tha

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-03 Thread Loïc Minier
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Regarding the -dev package names, I'm personally OK if you don't > introduce transitional packages and just add Provides: fields, because > AFAICS only 2 packages in the archive have a versioned build-dependency > on imagemagick. Concerning Provides, I

Bug#507269: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition

2008-12-02 Thread Adeodato Simó
Hello, Nelson. #507269 has been recently brought to our attention, and I'd like to pop in because, unlike what you state in the bug report, this issue affects Debian, so it should be addressed if possible, independently of whether that benefits Ubuntu or not. Let's see if we can agree on something.