Andreas Barth píše v Út 10. 10. 2006 v 08:34 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> just to repeat: If you want to do the poppler transition, it is *your*
> task to check:
>
> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061005 21:22]:
> > > - In any case, shouldn't we carefully check all affected packages,
> > > whether t
* Ond??ej Surý ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061011 17:35]:
> Considering my work schedule atm, let's postpone this transition to etch
> +1, so we have more time to do it right.
Ok, thanks.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Hi,
just to repeat: If you want to do the poppler transition, it is *your*
task to check:
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061005 21:22]:
> > - In any case, shouldn't we carefully check all affected packages,
> > whether they FTBFS and whether they still work? This would IMO
> > require
P.S. I'm out of town and away from Internet access this weekend,
until Tuesday.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2006-10-05 16:48:19 -0400 Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two actually, tetex and texlive, since both build the same binary,
> pdftex. How do you know the others don't have a problem? Has anybody
> tried to build the others?
Hmm... it looks like the new poppler does indeed change q
On 2006-10-05 16:48:19 -0400 Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Six packages build-depend on libpoppler-dev, but I understand that only one
>> of them is affected by the API change; so it seems my concern about
>> cost/benefit of changing the pac
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> > - Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or
>> > is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Or
>> > even if it's generally consensua
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > 0.5.4-2 is in experimental (i386) and can be used as base for
> > transition.
> Well, we can use them as a base for testing. However, it seems as if
> starting the transition would be a bit premature. I have seen a couple
> of que
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > - Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or
> > is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Or
> > even if it's generally consensual, should the name still be kept
> > unchanged
Frank Küster píše v Čt 05. 10. 2006 v 13:00 +0200:
> Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Step 1:
> > Looks like ideal move would be to create libpoppler0.5-dev; -glib and
> > -qt bindings didn't change API, so they could keep their name.
> >
> > Step 2:
> > And I will introduce debian spe
Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Step 1:
> Looks like ideal move would be to create libpoppler0.5-dev; -glib and
> -qt bindings didn't change API, so they could keep their name.
>
> Step 2:
> And I will introduce debian specific SONAME for libpoppler, so we are
> not hit by random ABI chan
Frank Küster píše v Út 03. 10. 2006 v 16:29 +0200:
> Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:39 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> >> Dear Ondrej!
> >>
> >> Can you now tell us what the status is? It is a bit unclear for me? I
> >> can create new packages for texlive-b
Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:39 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> Dear Ondrej!
>>
>> Can you now tell us what the status is? It is a bit unclear for me? I
>> can create new packages for texlive-bin with the changed patch, or leave
>> it.
>>
>> Are the package
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:39 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Dear Ondrej!
>
> Can you now tell us what the status is? It is a bit unclear for me? I
> can create new packages for texlive-bin with the changed patch, or leave
> it.
>
> Are the packages you want to upload to unstable already in exper
Dear Ondrej!
Can you now tell us what the status is? It is a bit unclear for me? I
can create new packages for texlive-bin with the changed patch, or leave
it.
Are the packages you want to upload to unstable already in experimental,
or available in any other place? If yes I could at least try in
On 2006-10-02 08:26:08 -0400 Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Affected packages (directly):
> libpopplerkit0
> libpdfkit0
FYI, these two packages are also part of the (currently ongoing) GNUstep
library transition.
I'll check to see they will still compile with the new poppler (thou
Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> poppler 0.5.4 (f.d.o PDF rendering library) was declared stable by
> upstream and I would like to upload new version to unstable which
> changes SONAME from 0 to 1. No API changes were done between 0.4.x and
> 0.5.x so just rebuild with new libpopp
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 15:52 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libpoppler1: Depends: poppler-data but it is not installable
> E: Broken packages
> # apt-cache policy poppler-data
> poppler-data:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: (none)
> Version ta
Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gnome Team will take care of evince, and I am Ccing maintainers of
> affected packages (although I think that binary NMU can fix that?).
Hm, while trying to check tetex-bin:
# apt-get -t experimental install libpoppler1 libpoppler-dev
Reading package list
Le lun 2 octobre 2006 14:26, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> poppler 0.5.4 (f.d.o PDF rendering library) was declared stable by
> upstream and I would like to upload new version to unstable which
> changes SONAME from 0 to 1. No API changes were done between 0.4.x
> and 0.5.x so just rebuild with
20 matches
Mail list logo
