Re: New unstable GTK+/GLib packages' names -- seeking advice
>>>>> "James" == James Troup <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
James> dpkg doesn't do reverse dependency checking; if I have
James> say foo installed which depends on libgtk1.1 (= 1.1.5-1),
James> it'll happily let me install libgtk1.1 1.1.6-1, silently
James> breaking foo.
James> (1) is the only option. If we limit the number of packages
James> compiled with gtk1.1 (as opposed to gtk1), it won't be that
James> big a deal, IMHO. (Space is not an issue, if it were, we
James> would presumably get rid of iraf, picons, timidity patches
James> or something similar first).
Okay. I will release gtk+1.1.5 and glib1.1.5 source/binary packages
What should I do about the old gtk+1.1 and glib source packages whose
names don't match the new setup? Should they be removed from the
archives as soon as no more packages are dependant upon them?
Brought to you by the letters M and B and the number 19.
"Nerd. Loser. Jerk. Moron. Worm. Scum. Idiot. Fool." -- Pkunk, SCII
Debian GNU/Linux -- where do you want to go tomorrow? http://www.debian.org/
I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet and YiffNet IRC as Che_Fox.