On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:34:07PM -0800, David Schleef wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:18:57PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Having this bug fixed in unstable doesn't do us any good for sarge if it's > > been replaced by a package that can't be built from source. Why does > > swf-player need liboil0.3?
> Older versions of swfdec used liboil-0.2. The current version uses > 0.3, because it is ABI-stable. There have been a lot of annoying > bugs fixed in recent swfdec releases; it would be nice to get these > into sarge. > I'm merely waiting patiently for liboil-0.3 to get into sid. I'm > told it should be processed in a few days. Since the new liboil-0.3 is going to require a gstreamer rebuild before it will reach testing, and this is likely to take some time after liboil-0.3 itself clears new, I'm going to tag the version of swfdec0.3 currently in testing for removal. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
