Re: ogle stuck in incoming?
I know that xine is now renamed to xine-ui, just being lazy not to
explicitly write out xine-ui, libxine0, libxine0-dev. Sorry for the
confusion.
A follow-up question wrt this issue: How can one see that a newer
version has been renamed, as in this case xine has been renamed to
xine-ui. Without doing a thorough investigation the obvious solution
would be to just install xine and get the old version, even in
unstable!!
This brings up an old question of mine about debian packages. Way back
I was told that date information is not possible to have in
description files since the time spent in upload is undefined
etc. However, there are two dates that _can_ be given, the upstream
package release date and the package maintainer release date.
This issue has probably been discussed at length, from time to time,
but classifying packages by dates is a very convenient method e.g. to
see if development has stopped, choosing between two competing
packages etc. Whatever you say about package formats, .deb _is_
superior also in my opinion, but the date information in .rpm packages
is something to _wish_ for.
rpm -qi 'package' gives build date and install date, dpkg -s 'package'
does not. ftp areas with .rpm packages show the upload dates while one
usually don't look at ftp areas of .debs. However packages.debian.org
does not give _any_ date indication, except if you lock at the bug
reports. Is date information completely out of the question?
Svante
Nathan Poznick writes:
> Thus spake Andreas Metzler:
> > BTW, according to http://packages.debian.org/xine xine's version in
> > unstable still 0.4.3-2.
>
> (the xine package is the old 0.4.3 version, the new xine is in
> xine-ui, libxine0, and libxine0-dev)
>
> --
> Nathan Poznick <poznick@conwaycorp.net>
> PGP Key: http://drunkmonkey.org/pgpkey.txt
>
> Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: