Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we

To: debian-gtk-gnome@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-gtk-gnome@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
From: Jack Howarth <howarth@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <[🔎] 200208080332.XAA07518@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
References: <[🔎] 200208080234.WAA07804@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <[🔎] 20020808.120419.424268515.tagoh@debian.org>

Christian,
     I agree. But is it possible for someone to NMU all of these packages
in GNOME 2.0 in a sensible build order so that we don't end up with
a bunch of failed attempts at this because Y got built before X, etc.
It would seem rather trivial...just adjust the debian/control if it
mentions libpng and bump the changelog. I'm just concerned how many
iterations this will take to squeeze it through the build machines in
the necessary order.
                      Jack

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
  - From: Christian Marillat <marillat.christian@wanadoo.fr>

References:
- libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
  - From: Jack Howarth <howarth@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
- Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
  - From: Akira TAGOH <tagoh@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
Next by Date: Uniconify with gnome2 and sawfish
Previous by thread: Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
Next by thread: Re: libgtk+2.0/png3...are we or aren't we
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread