On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 07:20 +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > On Wednesday 08 July 2009 05:18:50 K. Piche wrote: > > That was me. I've tested a good number of the packages and most don't > > require a rebuild which is odd since in the past it was always a hassle. > > smc only required a rebuild cause the boost versioned dep had a '=' and > > not '>='. I'll finish this up. > > Just remove those packages from the list that don't need a rebuild.
Some of the packages boost is really a makedepends cause it has so-called header-only libraries versus the binary libraries. That is, all the features of a library are available by including the header with no *.so to link to. An example would be licq. > > Also I think we should drop bmpx if no one has objections. Doesn't work > > well and hasn't been updated in more than a year. > > Sure, why not. This would also include bmp-musepack and bmp-wma which was not > rebuild since 2005. Well those packages are for bmp which is also pretty much dead but at least it works. They can go to unsupported. k -- K. Piche <[email protected]>
