[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Libcdio-devel] libdio 0.76cvs last call?

From: R. Bernstein
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] libdio 0.76cvs last call?
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:37:25 -0400

I have put applied the version patches for libcdio_cdda and
libcdio_paranoia. I have looked for other occurances of the "new" as a
variable, which was only in the private C files, but they've been
changed. Since the versioning code changes paranoia source that
release number has now been incremented.

I've tested this on various machines. However it would be good to test
this on the Debian suite of boxes as well. The most likely place of
failure is with the versioned libraries. (The patch didn't include
them into the distribution tarball).

So I think it wise to yet wait another day to see in anyone can find
further issues. Please folks, especially distribution folks if you can
test this, it would be most helpful.

Thanks again.

Nicolas Boullis writes:
 > Hi,
 > On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 04:49:18PM -0400, R. Bernstein wrote:
 > > Nicolas Boullis writes:
 > >  > I've been very inactive recently, 
 > > 
 > > I think it is expected that this is the way things work in open-source
 > > projects. For me if not others, the times when you have been active,
 > > more than make up for the inactive times ;-)
 > Thanks :-)
 > >  > but have been working at packaging 
 > >  > 0.75 for Debian. 
 > > 
 > > Excellent!  0.76 is strictly a bugfix release and in 0.77, I (if not I
 > > hope others) will start to make headway on UDF support which will
 > > probably take a long while and will either mean the next release will
 > > be some time off and/or probably make the next libcdio releases
 > > unstable in some way.  Given this, for those distributions want to get
 > > the most bang for the effort, I think 0.76 then would be the version
 > > of libcdio to synchronize against.
 > OK, I'll wait for 0.76 befor I upload.
 > >  > Oh, and how about versionning the symbols in and 
 > >  >
 > > 
 > > You are the expert here. If you want to make the changes needed to CVS
 > > by all means do so. Or send a patch.
 > Well, I certainly won't push such changes myself, as this is fairly 
 > prone to break something...
 > Anyway, here is a proposed patch; I hope I haven't forgotten any 
 > needed symbol...
 > Oh, and I also just had a user who complained about "new" being used as 
 > an identifier in the declaration of iso9660_name_translate_ext. (See 
 > .) As far as I can see, this bug does not 
 > exist any more in current CVS. But i might also be nice to remove all 
 > occurences of new used as an identifier.
 > Cheers,
 > Nicolas

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]