On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 03:52:00 PM Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 07:08:06AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It's not a new package. It was just behind several releases and the
> > question was to either update to the last Qt4 release or an unreleased Qt5
On Tuesday 22 December 2015 15:52:00 Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 07:08:06AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It's not a new package. It was just behind several releases and the
> > question was to either update to the last Qt4 release or an unreleased Qt5
> > v
On Monday 21 December 2015 23:38:41 Scott Kitterman wrote:
[snip]
> >
> >I think this is overcautious. Qt 4 is to be removed from Debian so
> >removing dependencies on Qt 4 is preferred to adding new ones.
>
> Digikam is notoriously difficult to package before final release due to
> depending on u
Hi Scott,
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 07:08:06AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It's not a new package. It was just behind several releases and the
> question was to either update to the last Qt4 release or an unreleased Qt5
> version.
By “new package” I meant kgeomanip, which was never packaged.
On December 22, 2015 6:31:11 AM EST, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38:41PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Digikam is notoriously difficult to package before final release due
>to
>> depending on unreleased library versions and/or embedded code copies.
> Not
>> p
Hi all,
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38:41PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Digikam is notoriously difficult to package before final release due to
> depending on unreleased library versions and/or embedded code copies. Not
> packaging pre-release versions of Digikam is an eminently reasonable thi
