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

Re: esound with libasound2



(Please cc: me if you reply this message.)

Ok, I understand what your thinking.  I will not do NMU.  

However, I don't think only ALSA 0.5 is stable release. The current
ALSA is also enough stable for sid ("unstable" release) users.  So I
believe the upload of esound with libasound2 to sid is not so bad
action.  Moreover, the upstream ALSA developers said " The 0.5.x
series is considered deprecated and is no longer supported" (in their
web page.), and Debian will treat gcc3.2 as a default c compiler in
near feture. I believe ALSA 0.5 cannot be built by gcc 3.2.  Then,
please reconsider about uploading esound built with libasound2.

Regards.

By the way, how about gdm package? The current (in sid) gnome version
is "2" !!


From: rmurray@cyberhqz.com (Ryan Murray)
Subject: Re: esound with libasound2
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:13:52 -0800
Message-ID: <20021204051352.GA18540@cyberhqz.com>

rmurray> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:48:12PM +0900, Ryuichi Arafune wrote:
rmurray> > any objections?  
rmurray> 
rmurray> This is an ABI change, and as ALSA 0.5 is still the stable release, (and
rmurray> the only one that seems to work for me) I don't want to change it yet.
rmurray> 
rmurray> > As in #170923, we have newer version of esound.  If
rmurray> 
rmurray> Debian esound has several changes from upstream.  The new upstream version
rmurray> doesn't have many changes, and some of them are already in the package,
rmurray> which is why I haven't updated it.
rmurray> 
rmurray> > there is no objections about NMU, I would like to upload for this new
rmurray> > version of esound.
rmurray> 
rmurray> Please do not.



Reply to: