On 27/04/2008, Andres Mejia wrote: > There it is. I really think the openal-soft library should be the new > "openal" library. I don't know if these could be release with Lenny > however. Hi, thanks for your work on this. And that's exactly the point I wanted to raise: the timeframe to properly test those packages is really narrow. IIRC, there's still the freeze of non-essential toolchain (like debhelper, cdbs) before the full freeze happens, but in case we're switching to openal-soft, the decision should be made very quickly. Questions that come to mind (answers might be contained in previous mails, but let's ask them all anyway): - Can both libs coexist? - If so, is it possible to release the packages that aren't working (yet?) with openal-soft with the old/unmaintained openal? Same thing for the packages that might appear buggy with openal-soft. In any cases, I think it's urgent to communicate and coordinate with all reverse dependencies, so that they are aware of that new library, can eventually help get in touch with upstream and help testing the switch, and possibly give us their opinion on the whole picture. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
pgpUau5sANRXb.pgp
Description: PGP signature