Re: Does libgpod have a (pro)active maintainer in Core?

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

 



On 11/20/06, Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is upgrading to 0.3.2 good enough for FC5/FC6?

my understanding right now is that it is. But let's take a look at
what is actually making use of libgpod right now in Fedora-space.
There is a rhythmbox specific update to 0.4 request specifically to
fix a rhythmbox crasher condition.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211823

Other than rhythmbox, what else in fedora space right now is going to
be affected by an ABI change? I'm not sure an ABI change would cause
undue problems, espeecially since all the apps that could use it via
python, can't at the moment.

-jef

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers

--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux