[arch-dev-public] graphite (v2 branch) in staging
I've pushed new graphit2-1.0.3 to staging repo. I will prepare new LibreOffice builds there to make use of it. Please fix Texlive to either use old internal silgraphite one or use the new version. -Andy
On 2011/10/28 Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org> wrote:
I've pushed new graphit2-1.0.3 to staging repo. I will prepare new LibreOffice builds there to make use of it.
Please fix Texlive to either use old internal silgraphite one or use the new version.
I'm completely confused. There is no graphit2 package, only a graphite package. Why is it not called libgraphite or libgraphite2? If the names are different, why do we absolutely need to remove libgraphite immediately? Rémy.
Am Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:37:18 +0200 schrieb Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com>:
On 2011/10/28 Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org> wrote:
I've pushed new graphit2-1.0.3 to staging repo. I will prepare new LibreOffice builds there to make use of it.
Please fix Texlive to either use old internal silgraphite one or use the new version.
I'm completely confused. There is no graphit2 package, only a graphite package. Why is it not called libgraphite or libgraphite2? If the names are different, why do we absolutely need to remove libgraphite immediately?
Rémy.
Most Arch devs dislike to have a lib in several versions in our repos. I've kept the main project name "graphite" because we usually don't rename for major .so bumps. The new pkg provides some binary tools so I dropped the "lib" prefix. We have to rebuild the two related packages anyways. Technically it would be possible to ship both packages, they don't seem to file conflict. But this is not what we want. Please have a look at Fedora. They also dropped old silgraphite and maybe have a fix for you pkg. -Andy
On 2011/10/28 Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org> wrote:
Most Arch devs dislike to have a lib in several versions in our repos. I've kept the main project name "graphite" because we usually don't rename for major .so bumps.
The new pkg provides some binary tools so I dropped the "lib" prefix. We have to rebuild the two related packages anyways.
Technically it would be possible to ship both packages, they don't seem to file conflict. But this is not what we want. Please have a look at Fedora. They also dropped old silgraphite and maybe have a fix for you pkg.
I remember the discussion we had about that, but that's not what I'm talking about. My opinion is just that if the pkgname was changed, I see no reason to drop libgraphite exactly at the same time graphite enters the repository. graphite can move as soon as libreoffice and there's no reason to wait for texlive, libgraphite can be dropped independently as soon as I make sure texlive does not use it anymore. Rémy.
participants (2)
-
Andreas Radke
-
Rémy Oudompheng