search for: liboggflac1

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:03:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > *AND* there is a major problem with liboggflac1. > > liboggflac1 did not change the soname (better check this, it might require a > soname change, check the seekable ogg-flac support stuff). CCing upstream on this. Josh, did 1.1.1 change interfaces in liboggflac? If so, it needs a soname change. > If it does, a new upload fixes i...

...-0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > liboggflac FROM THE 1.0.4 RELEASE has version-info 0:1:0 > liboggflac FROM THE 1.1.1 RELEASE has version-info 2:1:1 Well, the packages we are having trouble here are: flac 1.1.0 (let me check... libOggFLAC version-info 1:2:0) debian package: liboggflac1 (matches libtool soname - ok) oggflac 1.1.0 not forward or backwards compatible with 1.0.4 -> ok. oggflac 1.1.1 not forward or backwards compatible with 1.1.0 -> problem. So, it looks to me that liboggflac 1.1.1 should have version-info 2:1:0. This is based on what you told us about the...

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:36:23AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Well, the packages we are having trouble here are: > flac 1.1.0 (let me check... libOggFLAC version-info 1:2:0) > debian package: liboggflac1 (matches libtool soname - ok) > > oggflac 1.1.0 not forward or backwards compatible with 1.0.4 -> ok. > oggflac 1.1.1 not forward or backwards compatible with 1.1.0 -> problem. > > So, it looks to me that liboggflac 1.1.1 should have version-info 2:1:0. > This is based...

OK, I'm coming to this a little late (been sick) but I'll try to answer all in one mail: On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:31:47PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > liboggflac1 did not change the soname (better check this, it > might require a > > soname change, check the seekable ogg-flac support stuff). > > CCing upstream on this. Josh, did 1.1.1 change interfaces in liboggflac? > If so, it needs a soname change. as far as I can piece together, the...

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:31:47PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > liboggflac1 did not change the soname (better check this, it might require a > > soname change, check the seekable ogg-flac support stuff). > > CCing upstream on this. Josh, did 1.1.1 change interfaces in liboggflac? > If so, it needs a soname change. Most of the changes were compatible, but...

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Is the debian mismatch based on a release between these too? Should > > flac-1.1.1 release have been 2:1:0? In either case, it seems rebuilding > > all the packages against the 1.1.1 library should resolve the issue? Well, if something built against 1.0.4 can (even in corner cases) malfunction with 1.1.1, then yes, it must be

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Ralph Giles wrote: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:31:47PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > liboggflac1 did not change the soname (better check this, it might require a > > > soname change, check the seekable ogg-flac support stuff). > > > > CCing upstream on this. Josh, did 1.1.1 change interfaces in liboggflac? > > If so, it needs a soname change. > > Most of the...

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:44:16AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > I am holding TiMidity in the current [broken] state until we get the new > upstream with the soname fixes. I hope it is released very soon :( Are we talking about the library's soname, or the debian package name? I compared the 1.1.1 release with 1.0.4, which I think was the last stable version. The

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:22:18AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Well, if something built against 1.0.4 can (even in corner cases) > malfunction with 1.1.1, then yes, it must be 2:1:0. This holds true to > the soname of the C++ libs too if changes on the underlying C libraries are > somehow exported through the C++ ones. Ok. One more time. liboggflac FROM THE 1.0.4

--- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Ralph Giles wrote: > > As such it's an incompatible change, for which you should also > > zero the 'age' field. So 1.1.1-beta1 should have been 2:0:0, > > not 2:0:1. > [...] > > Yes, I agree. The numbering is all about coexisting installs of the > > > various

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Ralph Giles wrote: > As such it's an incompatible change, for which you should also > zero the 'age' field. So 1.1.1-beta1 should have been 2:0:0, > not 2:0:1. [...] > Yes, I agree. The numbering is all about coexisting installs of the > various versions. Ok. I need to know what to do about this... is 1.1.2 with fixed sonames just around the

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:56:09AM -0800, Ralph Giles wrote: > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:44:16AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > I am holding TiMidity in the current [broken] state until we get the new > > upstream with the soname fixes. I hope it is released very soon :( > > Are we talking about the library's soname, or the debian package name?

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:37:18PM -0800, Josh Coalson wrote: > as far as I can piece together, the last releases went like: > > FLAC release libOggFLAC went to > ------------- ------------------------------------------ > 1.1.0 1:2:0 from 1:1:0 (code changes only I think) > 1.1.1-beta1 2:0:1 from 1:2:0 (some i'faces added, some changed) > 1.1.1

...tateString: I had the same problem recently; as noted by Ralph, the problem is that when you upgrade flac, the dependent library packages are not automatically upgraded, thus you get the above error. The same versions of the following Debian packages should be installed; flac libflac6 liboggflac1 [if the Debian developer is on this list, should there be a dependency here? apt-get update flac doesn't automatically pull the same version of liboggflac1 (it left the 1.1.0 version, which resulted in the above error)] B. B.

...ro (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Versions of packages flac depends on: ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-17 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libflac4 1.1.0-11 Free Lossless Audio Codec - runtim ii libogg0 1.1.0-1 Ogg Bitstream Library ii liboggflac1 1.1.0-11 Free Lossless Audio Codec - runtim -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- - mdz