On Friday 18 March 2005 23:55, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:53PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> > > versions.
> > >
> > > I'm still wondering on how exactly I'
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:53PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> > versions.
> >
> > I'm still wondering on how exactly I'm going to do this. But I
> > am thinking about getting all t
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That will get a lot of people whose upstream still thinks they can get away
> with autoconf 2.13 and libtool/automake 1.4 forever pissed, but probably the
> only package we will have to tolerate violating that rule is gnucash (whose
> build
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO they are important since libtool1.4 *will* be removed and then
> the bugs are serious. The only reason we're keeping libtool1.4 for now is
> because those packages still use it.
Many developers might be using libtool1.4 without needing to decla
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:53PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> > versions.
> >
> > I'm still wondering on how exactly I'm going to do this. But I
> > am thinking about getting all t
On Friday 18 March 2005 19:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> One of my goals for etch is getting rid of all old libtool
> versions.
>
> I'm still wondering on how exactly I'm going to do this. But I
> am thinking about getting all those packages to build depend on
> libtool, autoconf and automake.
$ grep
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:02:00PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:32]:
> > some time ago) we may need to upgrade them all to libtool 1.5 or
> > whatever. Not that we can do anything against that (keeping libtool 1.4
> > and any other version
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 14:14]:
> > We should make libtool 1.5.6 and autoconf 2.5 (*required for libtool 1.5.6),
> > as well as no usage of external autotools/libtool/autopoint (gettext) but
> > always using the Debian
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 14:14]:
> We should make libtool 1.5.6 and autoconf 2.5 (*required for libtool 1.5.6),
> as well as no usage of external autotools/libtool/autopoint (gettext) but
> always using the Debian packaged versions a release goal for etch.
>
> That
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:32]:
> > some time ago) we may need to upgrade them all to libtool 1.5 or
> > whatever. Not that we can do anything against that (keeping libtool 1.4
> > and any other version forever is obviously
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > cyrus-sasl
Go ahead, but I will likely request removal from the ftp archive for
cyrus-sasl, since the maintainer is mostly MIA and it looks like I am the
one doing sort-of-QA work on it most of the time...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk t
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 12:32]:
> some time ago) we may need to upgrade them all to libtool 1.5 or
> whatever. Not that we can do anything against that (keeping libtool 1.4
> and any other version forever is obviously no option) but perhaps it
> would be good to file wis
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:25:18AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 16:57]:
[...]
> IMHO they are important since libtool1.4 *will* be removed and then
> the bugs are serious. The only reason we're keeping libtool1.4 for now is
> because those packa
* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 16:57]:
> > I was planning on filing bugs against the above packages, but I was just
> > wondering what severity to make it? Important, or wishlist for now and
> > upgrade it to important later?
>
> Bah, I should have looked (harder) before I opened
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 04:55:06PM +1100, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following packages
>
> cinepaint
> cyrus-sasl
> freeradius
> libgtop
> rpm
>
> declare a build-dependency on libtool1.4, which is orphaned, and will
> probably be removed eventually.
>
> I was planning on filing bugs
Hi,
The following packages
cinepaint
cyrus-sasl
freeradius
libgtop
rpm
declare a build-dependency on libtool1.4, which is orphaned, and will
probably be removed eventually.
I was planning on filing bugs against the above packages, but I was just
wondering what severity to make it? Important, or
16 matches
Mail list logo
