On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:29:08PM -0600, Chris Halls wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and > > gphoto2 installed on their system, or why some people need one and > > others need the other? > > Yes, please don't remove gphoto yet! gphoto2 is still beta and my camera, a > Sony DSC-F1, is quite old and does not yet work with the new gphoto2 > package. There may be others too. But gphoto does not work with many newer > cameras, so it is important that gphoto2 is available too for those people. Don't worry. both packeges should stay available. > > I haven't yet filed a bugreport because I'm not sure where the problem lies: > with the packaging or the camera driver itself, and I was waiting for the > newer version to be packaged before bugging anyone. Afaik your camera will perharps never be ported to gphoto2 if nobody want to do it. They have completly rewritten gphoto2 from scratch and ported drivers. > Chris > -- > Chris Halls | Frankfurt, Germany Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science
Attachment:
pgpLjqgcWbNi2.pgp
Description: PGP signature