Re: Bug#55448 acknowledged by developer (recompile bsdgames with ncurses5)
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 05:57:10PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joel Klecker wrote:
> t> At 16:33 -0800 2000-01-22, Joey Hess wrote:
> > >I brought this up on debian-devel several days ago, and I was told
> > >ncurses4-dev would be put back in potato.
> >
> > Tell whoever said that congratulations on adopting ncurses4.2.
> > It's certainly news to me that libncurses4-dev is returning, I certainly
> > have no intention of trying to figure out how to get dpkg to DTRT with it.
> > That on top of one maintainer of a package in base making an idiotic remark
> > about not recompiling his package with ncurses5 sealed the fate of
> > libncurses4-dev as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Richard Braakman is the person who said this.
> | As I understand it, libncurses4-dev was removed as a quick fix for an
> | overlap problem. We're going to need it back before the release, because
> | as you point out, we'd otherwise be releasing a lot of packages "without
> | source".
>
> If you refuse to be reasonable about this, then we have two choices:
>
> 1. Ship potato with packages that can not be compiled with the source in
> potato.
> 2. Recompile 240 packages in the middle of the freeze. Welcome to another
> long freeze..
Well, I recompiled almost every package for sparc against not only
libncurses5, but libreadline2. This took a matter of 2 days and I have yet
to hear about any problems. Further more, because of the autobuilders, a
lot of bug reports have already been filed concerning packages that do not
use <curses.h> (ie. they do not check for the proper header in autoconf
or the like). This is not as hard as you try to make it, and it is also
already underway for some of the non-i386 ports.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: