Hi, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
I didn't but upstream did. Previously, upstream seperated the source in three packages but gave up on that with the current release (it is a configure parameter now to build the apps).
Yes, but it shows up as added files in the Debian patch, which it shouldn't IMO, especially if it builds upon a library.
Ok, I'll remove them the .pc directory
Cannot quilt "clean up" patches that are no longer needed?
Yes, the linda test probably goes through the changelog only, which is the only thing it can do, as it cannot check whether the package built different binaries before. Did really all of the binary package names change?
For the previous library: yes. The now two additional packages previously had: openobex-apps (1.0.0-rel-6) ircp (0.3-2)
Should be ok.
Indeed. I think this warning can be ignored, and if it persists in the next version, silenced with an override.
Really? I thought PUSH was pretty much a different protocol, with a different purpose, on a different channel, just using the same object format.
As I said, I'll have a look at it. The effects on my hardware (several Siemens mobile phones) is the same for both.
Ah. For me (using a Nokia) there is quite a difference: Stuff transferred via obexftp shows up in the filesystem, objects received via PUSH show up in "Received messages" and I'm asked what to do with them. Thus, I have less of an issue allowing anyone to send me stuff like vcards via PUSH, because the system keeps track of what items I have already seen.
Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature