Re: [DebianGIS] libgdal renaming
GDAL is almost ready, except I belive that the recent changes I made to the library name need to be undone. If it is true that the debian archive removes the binary if a package no longer produces it, then I see no way for us to maintain multiple versions of libgdal in the repository. Am I wrong?
It seems that we are left with recompiling qgis and mapserver everytime there is new gdal. This means we will skip some new versions of gdal in the interest of keeping the mapserver and qgis working. If so, then its not worth the effort to be patching sources in gdal to rename the library with 1.3.1 and we can simply call the package libgdal1 (not libgdal1-1.3.1).
All in agreement? if there is concensus I will rename the packages and give my vote to have it uploaded by a sponsor.
Thanks
Jon
----- Original Message ----
From: Francesco P. Lovergine <frankie@debian.org>
To: pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org
Sent: Wed 11 Jan 2006 01:41:21 AM MST
Subject: Re: [DebianGIS] libgdal renaming
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:35:12PM -0800, Jon Saints wrote:
> "I think if the source package stops producing a particular binary package the ftpmasters end
> up removing it."
>
> Does anyone know if this is the case?
>
Yeah, that's a archive feature AFAIK.
BTW, folks is the gdal upload expected this week? Please, update the cvs
as in the latest threads and me or any other with upload privileges on
the main archive will go ahead...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
_______________________________________________
Pkg-grass-general mailing list
Pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general
Reply to: