[packman] Why do we build libcaca ?

Pascal Bleser pascal.bleser at opensuse.org
Fri Feb 25 21:13:30 CET 2011

On 2011-02-25 20:43:04 (+0100), Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser at opensuse.org> wrote:
> Is there a specific reason why we build libcaca in our
> repository ? (currently in Essentials)
> We build 0.99.beta17
> 11.4 has 0.99.beta17
> 11.3 has 0.99.beta16
> 11.2 has 0.99.beta16
> 11.1 has 0.99.beta13b
> There is no "special" dependency in it, so there is no
> "uncrippling" reason to build it ourselves.
> Is it just because < 11.4 have older versions ?
> If so, wouldn't it be okay to build against 0.99.beta16 on 11.3
> and 11.2 ? (rather than introducing an upgrade side-effect in
> Essentials)
> Please let me know if there is a good reason of having the
> latest in our repository (other than the above, in which case I
> will only build libcaca for 11.1 and SLE_11 :)).

Actually, I decided to go forward and disabled building libcaca
in our repository for everything except Evergreen_11.1 and
SLE_11 (which have really old versions in the distro, although
even there, I wonder whether we shouldn't use the distro's
version except if it makes the build fail for MPlayer etc..)

Affected packages that depend on libcaca:

They all build just fine.

If, again, you think we should use the latest libcaca as a dependency for those
packages above, please let me know or re-enable it for that distribution
version yourself. Please make sure it's a good reason though, let's avoid
package upgrading side-effects on dependencies unless really needed.

  -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser at opensuse.org>
  /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill
 _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/attachments/20110225/74cab904/attachment.sig>

More information about the Packman mailing list