On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:54:14PM +0200, Giulio Paci wrote:
Il 09/08/2013 17:18, Sergei Golovan ha scritto:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto:
Why tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa is bad for you?
Because all
Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto:
Why tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa is bad for you?
Because all the programs that use snack will have to add all the backends as
alternatives, in order to support them.
Right now there are only two backends and there has not been any activity
upstream
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto:
Why tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa is bad for you?
Because all the programs that use snack will have to add all the backends as
alternatives, in order to support them.
Right
Il 09/08/2013 17:18, Sergei Golovan ha scritto:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto:
Why tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa is bad for you?
Because all the programs that use snack will have to add all the backends as
Now that libsnack2 has been renamed to tcl-snack and that libsnack2-alsa has
been renamed to tcl-snack-alsa, the situation seems even worse.
Is there any way a package using snack can depend on a generic version of
snack, without listing all possible backends? (i.e., depend on a generic
Why tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa is bad for you?
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that libsnack2 has been renamed to tcl-snack and that libsnack2-alsa has
been renamed to tcl-snack-alsa, the situation seems even worse.
Is there any way a package using
6 matches
Mail list logo
