Re: libxml++2.10

2005-07-28 Thread Nikita V. Youshchenko
> Hi Nikita, > > Am Donnerstag, den 28.07.2005, 12:04 +0400 schrieb Nikita V. > > Youshchenko: > > > I talked to upstream and they > > > said, the ABI broke during the development unintentionally, but we > > > should better stick to libxml++2.6-2.10.0 and recompile the > > > dependent packages. >

Re: libxml++2.10

2005-07-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hi Nikita, > Am Donnerstag, den 28.07.2005, 12:04 +0400 schrieb Nikita V. > Youshchenko: > > > I talked to upstream and they > > > said, the ABI broke during the development unintentionally, but we > > > should better stick to libx

Re: libxml++2.10

2005-07-28 Thread Daniel Holbach
Hi Nikita, Am Donnerstag, den 28.07.2005, 12:04 +0400 schrieb Nikita V. Youshchenko: > > I talked to upstream and they > > said, the ABI broke during the development unintentionally, but we > > should better stick to libxml++2.6-2.10.0 and recompile the dependent > > packages. > > Is 2.10 backwa

Re: libxml++2.10

2005-07-28 Thread Nikita V. Youshchenko
> > For one of our internal projects, libxml++2.6 was too old. > > So I've created a package for libxml++2.10, using debian/ dir for the > > latest libxml++2.6 package. > > I packaged it for Ubuntu - libxml++2.6 and libxml++2.10 were never > designed to be installable parallely. I believe my packa

Re: libxml++2.10

2005-07-27 Thread Daniel Holbach
Hi Nikita, Am Donnerstag, den 28.07.2005, 02:04 +0400 schrieb Nikita V. Youshchenko: > For one of our internal projects, libxml++2.6 was too old. > So I've created a package for libxml++2.10, using debian/ dir for the > latest libxml++2.6 package. I packaged it for Ubuntu - libxml++2.6 and libxm