Bug#733969: ardour3: FTBFS when built against libaubio4

2014-01-11 Thread Paul Brossier
On 01/11/2014 08:40 AM, Paul Brossier wrote: > hi!, > > here is a patch for ardour. i don't have write access to the repo. > > ardour3 and denemo will follow. here is the ardour3 one, unfortunately i could not test it yet (hard disk full). but the patch is no different

Bug#733968: Bug#733969: ardour3: FTBFS when built against libaubio4

2014-01-11 Thread Paul Brossier
hi!, here is a patch for ardour. i don't have write access to the repo. ardour3 and denemo will follow. best, paul On 01/10/2014 04:00 PM, Paul Brossier wrote: > Hi all, > > On 01/10/2014 02:21 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Adding Paul Brossier to

Bug#733969: ardour3: FTBFS when built against libaubio4

2014-01-10 Thread Paul Brossier
Hi all, On 01/10/2014 02:21 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > Adding Paul Brossier to CC, since he maintains aubio and uploaded the > version with the API bump. Paul, please see/comment Adrian's mail below. > > From my point of view (i.e. with my release hat on),

Re: puredata package changes

2011-05-11 Thread Paul Brossier
might be > any pitfalls. It seems that we should now build pd libs against > puredata-dev instead of puredata, for example. > > .hc > > On May 8, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Paul Brossier wrote: > >> Hi Hans, >> >> I guess the 'git log' and debian/changelog

Re: puredata package changes

2011-05-08 Thread Paul Brossier
Hi Hans, I guess the 'git log' and debian/changelog are the best place to look at. Any specific questions about these changes? Cheers, piem On 08/05/11 18:13, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > Hey IOhannes and piem, > > I wonder if you could update us on all the changes to the puredata > pack

Re: freecycle: Preparations for the removal of the KDE3 and Qt3 libraries

2011-05-03 Thread Paul Brossier
Hi all, I will file the bug. cheers, Paul On 03/05/11 10:18, Alessio Treglia wrote: > Hi Gürkan, > >> It doesn't look like it will be ported to qt4 right now. If you want to do >> it go >> ahead, otherwise the package should be removed. > > unfortunately yes, it should be removed. > Could you