Hi Ralf, |--==> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:06:42 +0200, Ralf Mardorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
RM> The 64 Studio 2.1 stable repository provides RM> libart-2.0-2 2.3.19-3~bpo.1, while the dev package is version is 2.3.17-1. RM> The 64 Studio 2.1 testing, src testing, Lenny and Lenny backports RM> repositories might provide the wanted version for the dev package. I RM> didn't check it. RM> If so, than I can't see something speaking against the use of the dev RM> package that fit to the runtime lib. RM> Can there be a reason why the dev package shouldn't be the same like the RM> runtime lib? RM> Tow days ago I tried to install livemix by an Ubuntu package, while I RM> just enabled 64 Studio stable, Etch and Etch/Updates. It was installed RM> broken, because of missing dependencies, so I does a complete remove. RM> I don't think that livemix will provide e.g. libart-2.0-2 RM> 2.3.19-3~bpo.1, so that my new install is broken because of this. I RM> checked http://apt.64studio.com/64studio/stable/pool/main/l/libart-lgpl/ RM> to see which version is provided by the stable repository and found out, RM> that it's the stable repository its self that provides libart-2.0-2 RM> 2.3.19-3~bpo.1. To get backported -dev packages you have to enable the etch backports repository: deb http://apt.64studio.com/backports etch-backports main The libart-2.0-dev_2.3.19-3~bpo.1 package should be there as well: http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/liba/libart-lgpl/ Unfortunatel including these -dev packages in the official APT repo and ISO would increase a lot its size, because of all the needed dependences. Ciao, Free _______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
