[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: switching to libxml2



>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:42:28 +0200, Davide Puricelli <apurice@tin.it> said:

 Davide> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
 >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, 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
 >>
 >> 1. file only wishlist bugs
 >> 2. don't do NMUs without the permission of the maintainers - what
 >>    you
 >> want is only a wish, not a real bug
 >>
 >> > 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.
 >>
 >> Are there any real problems or what does "annoyning" mean?
 >>
 >> > ciao, federico
 >>
 >> cu Adrian
 >>
 >> --
 >>
 >> Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht, sondern
 >> weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
 >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
 >> listmaster@lists.debian.org

 Davide> There're real troubles: for example look at sodipodi; it uses
 Davide> libglade-gnome0, so I need libxml-dev (libglade-gnome0-dev
 Davide> depends on it), but now I need to compile it against libxml2
 Davide> to close some bugs, but I can't because libxml2-dev conflicts
 Davide> with libxml-dev.

Then convince the libxml maintainer to remove this conflict.  It
doesn't need to exist.  Each lib installs its libs and headers in
different places.

Jim

-- 
@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org>      |  Blessed Be!
@    http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com |  Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach



Reply to: