Re: Rosegarden 1.2.3
On Monday 12 June 2006 08:50, Mike O'Connor was like:
> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 13:29 +0200, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> > |--==> Free Ekanayaka writes:
> >
> > FE> Hi Mike,
> > FE> I'm starting to work on the rosegarden source package you
> > have FE> injected in the demudi Alioth SVN repository. It builds
> > fine, but FE> there are still some little things to tweak, which I'm
> > going to commit FE> soon.
> >
> > FE> I nobody else wants to step in, I'd be glad to sponsor the upload
> > of FE> this package.
> >
> > I've just built an i386 version of the new package. You can find it at:
> >
> > deb http://archive.64studio.com custom main
> > deb-src http://archive.64studio.com custom main
> >
> > it's compiled against sid, so you will need some packages from sid
> > (most noticeably kdelibs).
> >
> > Please if you can give it a test, if everything is ok I'd upload it to
> > the Debian archive.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Free
>
> I spent some time today testing dist-upgrades from sarge in a chroot
> with rosegarden4 and rosegarden2 installed, and made some changes which
> made the upgrade paths work.
>
> Otherwise I think its in good shape.
>
> stew
What approach are you taking with Rosegarden2?
Currently Rosegarden is a dummy package which points to Rosegarden2, but
should now point to Rosegarden4. There was some talk on debian-qa of turning
Rosegarden2 into a dummy package pointing to Rosegarden4 also, which would
force an upgrade. I don't think this is a particularly good idea. I would
like to know what you two are intending, as I do not wish to raise
counter-productive arguments on debian-qa.
I think it is important to be clear about this and advise debian-qa
appropriately.
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
Reply to: