hi, could someone please apply these to Tremor svn? 0001-update_symbols.patch there are 3 public symbols in the headers, which are missing in the linker script and thus marked as private again. This causes issues for e.g. gstreamer (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616194). 0002-pkgconfig.patch this adds a pkg config file You probably also want to do something like Index: configure.in ==================================================================--- configure.in (Revision 17148) +++ configure.in (Arbeitskopie) @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ AM_CONFIG_HEADER([config.h]) -AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libvorbisidec,1.2.0) +AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libvorbisidec,1.0.2) to avoid confiusion with the version (see CHANGELOG). There are bugs for debian/ubuntu regarding this. If someone applies patches, I can send more to cleanup autofoo. Thanks Stefan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-update_symbols.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/attachments/20100420/b154c90c/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0002-pkgconfig.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1334 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/attachments/20100420/b154c90c/attachment-0001.bin
On 20 April 2010 15:45, Stefan Kost <ensonic at hora-obscura.de> wrote:> hi, > > could someone please apply these to Tremor svn? > > 0001-update_symbols.patch > there are 3 public symbols in the headers, which are missing in the > linker script and thus marked as private again. This causes issues for > e.g. gstreamer (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616194). > > 0002-pkgconfig.patch > this adds a pkg config file >Hi, I tested and applied these two patches. (Apologies that your attribution didn't stay with the commit -- I set you as the author using git-svn, but subversion turned it into a normal svn commit and rewrote the author info).> You probably also want to do something like > Index: configure.in > ==================================================================> --- configure.in ? ?(Revision 17148) > +++ configure.in ? ?(Arbeitskopie) > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ > > ?AM_CONFIG_HEADER([config.h]) > > -AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libvorbisidec,1.2.0) > +AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libvorbisidec,1.0.2) > > > to avoid confiusion with the version (see CHANGELOG). There are bugs for > debian/ubuntu regarding this.I haven't made this change, i guess it's up to monty. cheers, Conrad.
Conrad, Thanks for applying. In general try to keep all three branches in sync though.... Monty
On 20 April 2010 16:11, <xiphmont at xiph.org> wrote:> Conrad, > > Thanks for applying. ?In general try to keep all three branches in > sync though....ok, I applied the patches to trunk/Tremor. The following branches also seem to be for Tremor: branches/libogg2-branch/ branches/lowmem-branch/ branches/lowmem-no-byte/ which of these are still current? (finding these under svn.xiph.org is non-obvious ;-) Conrad.
hi, xiphmont at xiph.org wrote:> Conrad, > > Thanks for applying. In general try to keep all three branches in > sync though.... > > Monty >do you have any opinion on the versioning? The last enyry in the CHANGELOG was *** 20020517: 1.0.2 *** Playback bugfix to floor1; mode mistakenly used for sizing instead of blockflag but the configure.in uses AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libvorbisidec,1.2.0) The configure entry causes "make dist" to produce a libvorbisidec-1.2.0.tar.gz. Should a next SVN snapshot be 1.2.0 or 1.0.3 ? Stefan
Am 20.04.2010 13:25, schrieb Stefan Kost:> hi, > xiphmont at xiph.org wrote: >> Conrad, >> >> Thanks for applying. In general try to keep all three branches in >> sync though.... >> >> Monty >> > > do you have any opinion on the versioning? > The last enyry in the CHANGELOG was > *** 20020517: 1.0.2 *** > > Playback bugfix to floor1; mode mistakenly used for sizing instead > of blockflag > > but the configure.in uses > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libvorbisidec,1.2.0) > > The configure entry causes "make dist" to produce a > libvorbisidec-1.2.0.tar.gz. > > Should a next SVN snapshot be 1.2.0 or 1.0.3 ? > > Stefanping - any thoughts? There has been some confusion about this in the past already as distros where shipping a svn snapshot and calling it 1.2.0, software depending on the 1.2.0 and thus failing on other platforms that only had 1.0.2. Stefan