* Matthias Klose [Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:16:51PM +0200]:
> On 02.06.2010 09:56, Laurent Fousse wrote:
>> * Matthias Klose [Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:05:25AM +0200]:
>>> just wondering, why a new -dev package is needed?
>>
>> It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that you mention it,
>> it'
On 02.06.2010 09:56, Laurent Fousse wrote:
* Matthias Klose [Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:05:25AM +0200]:
just wondering, why a new -dev package is needed?
It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that you mention it,
it's probably better to have the same name to ease upgrade. I'll
upload th
* Matthias Klose [Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:05:25AM +0200]:
> just wondering, why a new -dev package is needed?
It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that you mention it,
it's probably better to have the same name to ease upgrade. I'll
upload the change soon.
Laurent.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On 31.05.2010 15:19, Laurent Fousse wrote:
Hello,
* Matthias Klose [Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:45:05PM +0200]:
mpfr-3.0 needs to be packaged from a different source package, such that
the old library binary stays available while gcc-x.y isn't rebuilt. see
http://bugs.debian.org/546161 for the simi
Hello,
* Matthias Klose [Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:45:05PM +0200]:
> mpfr-3.0 needs to be packaged from a different source package, such that
> the old library binary stays available while gcc-x.y isn't rebuilt. see
> http://bugs.debian.org/546161 for the similiar issue with mpclib.
Thank you fo
Package: mpfr
Severity: important
mpfr-3.0 needs to be packaged from a different source package, such that the old
library binary stays available while gcc-x.y isn't rebuilt. see
http://bugs.debian.org/546161 for the similiar issue with mpclib.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-r
6 matches
Mail list logo