On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 03:20:30PM -0400, Peter Teichman wrote: > On 23 Apr 2001 20:58:57 +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > libglade and some other packages still depend on the very old libxml1. > > i just compiled libglade0 (and libglade-gnome0) by simply installing > > libxml2-dev and rebuilding. anyway, porting a package from libxml1 to > > libxml2 is quite easy, so i am about to file bugs agains those buggy > > packages. i am also quite ready to nmu if the authors don't rebuild > > but what's the procedure in this case? i don't want to displease > > anyone, but this dependency on the old library is annoying quite some > > of us. > > > > ciao, > > federico > > > > p.s. the problem is that libxml1-dev confliscts with libxml2-dev and > > the maintainmer does not want to fix that because packages should not > > use an old and deprecated library. obviously i agree. > > libxml1 is not deprecated. It is the xml library used by the GNOME 1.x > platform. Until GNOME 2 is released, libxml1 will be in active use. > There are significant source-level differences between applications that > use the two, so a porting effort would be a large amount of work. > > That said, recent versions of the two xml libraries are made to coexist. > There shouldn't be any files in common between the two. Any conflict > between libxml1-dev and libxml2-dev is an artificial one. > > Peter > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org So please ask Fredrik Hallenberg <hallon@debian.org> to remove those silly Conflicts, it seems that he has an other idea (#86508) Cheers, -- Davide Puricelli, evo@windnet.it | apurice@tin.it Debian Developer: evo@debian.org | http://www.debian.org PGP key: finger evo@debian.org UIN: 2885982
Attachment:
pgpwSlhqMF72k.pgp
Description: PGP signature