FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > 64 Studio > 64 Studio User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-28-2008, 01:06 PM
Ralf Mardorf
 
Default libart-2.0-2 and libart-2.0-dev

The 64 Studio 2.1 stable repository provides

libart-2.0-2 2.3.19-3~bpo.1, while the dev package is version is 2.3.17-1.

The 64 Studio 2.1 testing, src testing, Lenny and Lenny backports
repositories might provide the wanted version for the dev package. I
didn't check it.

If so, than I can't see something speaking against the use of the dev
package that fit to the runtime lib.

Can there be a reason why the dev package shouldn't be the same like the
runtime lib?

Tow days ago I tried to install livemix by an Ubuntu package, while I
just enabled 64 Studio stable, Etch and Etch/Updates. It was installed
broken, because of missing dependencies, so I does a complete remove.

I don't think that livemix will provide e.g. libart-2.0-2
2.3.19-3~bpo.1, so that my new install is broken because of this. I
checked http://apt.64studio.com/64studio/stable/pool/main/l/libart-lgpl/
to see which version is provided by the stable repository and found out,
that it's the stable repository its self that provides libart-2.0-2
2.3.19-3~bpo.1.

_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
 
Old 08-29-2008, 03:30 PM
Free Ekanayaka
 
Default libart-2.0-2 and libart-2.0-dev

Hi Ralf,

|--==> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:06:42 +0200, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> said:

RM> The 64 Studio 2.1 stable repository provides
RM> libart-2.0-2 2.3.19-3~bpo.1, while the dev package is version is 2.3.17-1.

RM> The 64 Studio 2.1 testing, src testing, Lenny and Lenny backports
RM> repositories might provide the wanted version for the dev package. I
RM> didn't check it.

RM> If so, than I can't see something speaking against the use of the dev
RM> package that fit to the runtime lib.

RM> Can there be a reason why the dev package shouldn't be the same like the
RM> runtime lib?

RM> Tow days ago I tried to install livemix by an Ubuntu package, while I
RM> just enabled 64 Studio stable, Etch and Etch/Updates. It was installed
RM> broken, because of missing dependencies, so I does a complete remove.

RM> I don't think that livemix will provide e.g. libart-2.0-2
RM> 2.3.19-3~bpo.1, so that my new install is broken because of this. I
RM> checked http://apt.64studio.com/64studio/stable/pool/main/l/libart-lgpl/
RM> to see which version is provided by the stable repository and found out,
RM> that it's the stable repository its self that provides libart-2.0-2
RM> 2.3.19-3~bpo.1.

To get backported -dev packages you have to enable the etch backports
repository:

deb http://apt.64studio.com/backports etch-backports main

The libart-2.0-dev_2.3.19-3~bpo.1 package should be there as well:

http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/liba/libart-lgpl/

Unfortunatel including these -dev packages in the official APT repo
and ISO would increase a lot its size, because of all the needed
dependences.

Ciao,

Free

_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org