Re: aspell upgrade woes
Brian Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:52:51PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>> Reintroducing the libaspell15 could cause problems with
>>> since it actually goes outside the C API of libaspell and uses C++
>>> linkage to some symbols. I "fixed" this bug (#307481) by making
>>> aspell-bin (or now just aspell) depend on the Source-Version of
>>> However, that fix is not in the stable package of aspell. In stable,
>>> aspell-bin just depends on libaspell15 (>= 0.60), so a partial upgrade
>>> of just libaspell15 would break aspell-bin. I suppose I could make
>>> new libaspell15 conflict with the old aspell-bin, but that's rather
>>> clumsy and could make upgrades even more awkward.
>>> I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be. I'm sort of inclined
>>> to just stick with the transitioned libaspell15c2...
>> Well, using libaspell15c2 will definitely cause some complexity on the
>> upgrade path from sarge to etch. I don't know how much having
>> conflict with aspell-bin (<< $version) would do so. I suspect that it
>> would be substantially less since there are only four packages in sarge
>> which depend directly on aspell-bin or aspell, vs. 61 packages which
>> on libaspell15 -- at a minimum, the worst-case scenario when conflicting
>> with aspell-bin (<< $version) looks substantially better.
> OK, very well then, I'll undo the GCC 4 transition for libaspell15.
> BTW, does anyone familiar with gettext want to send me a patch for RC
> bug #316666? Upstream said he plans to make a new release with an
> upgrade to gettext 0.14.5 sometime this week, but I haven't heard
> anything else from him.
I just run gettextize, aclocal, automake (version 1.7 is needed irrc),
autoconf and recompiled. That seemed to have fixed it for me.