On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:59:11PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Kevin Dalley <email@example.com> cum veritate scripsit: > > > Why has libusb0 been removed from unstable? Is libusb-0.1-4 > > inconsistent with libusb0? If the two libraries are inconsistent, > > then libusb0 should stay around. > > libusb0 contained libusb-0.1-3 (libusb-0.1.so.3), and later the > contents of libusb-0.1-4 (libusb-0.1.so.4) was uploaded as > libusb0. Therefore, packages compiled against libusb0 was > randomly compiled against libusb-0.1.so.4/3 due to maintainer mistake. > > To rectify such mistake in library packaging, a new package > which conflicts with old version needed to be created. > > I really think libusb maintainer should have announced this > somewhere, and I am not a libusb maintainer. He send a mail to all mainteners of package with libusb dependancy. He should upload a new package with a libusb0 conflict. Christophe > > > crossposting to -devel. > I have read debian-bugs-dist enough to know that many people are > confused. > > regards, > junichi > -- > firstname.lastname@example.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer > GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org > -- Christophe Barbé <email@example.com> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God.
Description: PGP signature