Re: libgda/libgnomedb 1.2 transition
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 21:42 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 12:05:04AM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 17:37 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm looking for advice on the transition of the gnome-db libraries to
> > > their newer versions.
> > >
> > > At first, I had thought on renaming the packages in order to allow the
> > > installation of the newer version along with the older one.
> >
> > libgda 2.0 (there are no tarball releases yet, I think) is meant to
> > install in parallel with libgda 1.2, so there should be no problem. If
> > you find conflicts then you should tell upstream as soon as possible.
> >
> > Or are you talking about libgda 1.0 versus libgda 1.2? I think in both
> > 1.0 and 1.2, the libs very actually called libgda2, to add to the
> > confusion.
>
> Yes, I'm talking about libgda 1.0 (soname 1) and
> libgda 1.2 (soname 3)
Yeah, that was a bit of a mess, and it needed debian (and other
packagers to fix it).
> libgda 2.0 will take some time to be released as stable, AFAIK.
>
> > > However,
> > > some things are making me wonder if this was the right choice:
> > >
> > > * The long time the new libgda2-3 source package is already
> > > sitting in NEW
> >
> > What upstream version of libgda is that?
>
> 1.2
>
>
> --
> Gustavo R. Montesino
> Debian Brasil - http://www.debianbrasil.org/
>
>
--
Murray Cumming
murrayc@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com
Reply to: