[Pkg-pascal-devel] fpc libtar unit to fp-units-base

[Abou Al Montacir]

Hi Paul,
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:45 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On 05-02-16 09:42, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > I'd say there is no direct dependency between fpmkunit and libtar, so
> > maybe we need to goo more deeper in why libtar is needed.
> 
> I believe Michalis already answered this. So I propose to move fpmkunit
> to fp-units-misc then. Agreed? How to handle reverse dependencies,
> e-mail them?
I found my bug! Was using 2.6.4 FPC not 3.0.0 so please forget about that.
I think it makes sense to have fpmkunit in fp-units-misc instead of fp-units-
base. But this will break backward compatibility while if we put libtar in fp-
units-base then it might be lesser issues of backward compatibility as I think
there are less pacakges depending on libtar than depending on fpmkunit.
So I'd say let's fall back to your first proposal and put libtar in fp-units-
base. This will cause for sure less backward compatibility issues and also makes
sense as paszlib is of the same functionality and is there anyway.
> > 
> > Then maybe we do not need any change in FPC. Maybe we can follow your
> > proposal and change CGE if no time to understand why libtar is needed.
> > 

> 
> 
> Done that already.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-pascal-devel mailing list
> 
Pkg-pascal-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org> 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-pascal-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20160206/8f75efda/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20160206/8f75efda/attachment.sig>