Rodrigo Moya wrote: >>> I suggest that you use this version and not the current and obsolete >>> version. >> Sorry, completely unrealistic. I'm not willing to use unpackaged and >> AFAICT unreliable code. >> > libgda 1.9.10x are mostly betas for the upcoming 2.0, so using them you > invest in time not needed later to port your application to the new > API :-) OK, that's reassuring. > >> I've tried chasing and backporting unstable/CVS versions of libraries >> with another package and it really is not fun. >> > you should be able to compile libgda, libgnomedb and mergeant tarballs > on a stable system with no problem. And if you find any problem in doing > so, we'll fix it immediately. That is, there is nothing in > libgda/libgnomedb/mergeant that needs unstable GNOME libraries I thought I was going to be able to package this little plugin this week so I'll still need to wait for a libgdaX-dev package in Debian before I restart work on the plugin. It won't take long and the work I've done so far is mostly still useful, it's the work from here on that is going to need the updated libraries. Thanks for the help. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature