Hi all,

> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:57:54PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:50:19PM +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> > ...
> > > you may want to have a very little bit more history... (and a
> > > packaging folder)
> > > http://code.x2go.org/gitweb?p=libjpeg-turbo.git;a=summary
> > 
> > This is one of them.   Ubuntu package history is another one. 
> > 
> > > We would have to import latest upstream on top of that 
> > 
> > Well, unless we all agree to reset git repo, this is impossible to do.
> > I like to do it....
> > 
> > > but the packaging works fine for libjpeg8 emulation mode.
> > 
> > Sure, what I commited is something like this plus new upstream.
> > It should work fine for libjpeg8 emulation mode.
> > 
> > > However, I really think that we should put the dpkg-divert stuff
> > > into an extra bin:package (in the same libjpeg-turbo src:package, of
> > > course).
> It is not reasonnable for libjpeg-turbo to dpkg-divert libjpeg8,
> since it does not provide the same features set and break libjpeg-progs
> at least. (there is a lot of features that are missing in libjpeg-turbo
> and some file created by libjpeg8 cannot be rendered correctly by
> libjpeg-turbo).

As said before, I agree with bill that the diversion stuff has to stay out of 
the base LJT package. However, I would like to give people in wheezy the chance 
to drop in replace LJ by LJT with installation of an extra package that handles 
the versions. This package I would not even mention in Suggests:... The drop-in 
replacement has to be reversible with uninstallation for the diversion package. 
People have to remove the diversions without removing LJT. 

Our (and LJT upstream's) gain then is that we have a package/forum in BTS where 
all the incompatibility reports can be assigned to. This is usefull for further 
discussions. If people urge on replacing LJ by LJT somepost-wheezy-time later, 
then we can say: hey, take a look at all those bugs filed against the LJT 
diversion package... Or maybe there won't be many bugs being reported. Who 
> Instead the set of application that need libjpeg-turbo could use
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc. (put libjpeg-turbo in
> /usr/lib/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg8 and do
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg8:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH   in a
> wrapper script)

As the native LJT library names do not interfere with Libjpeg8 lib so names, 
the LD_LIB_NAME thing is not even necessary, I think. Only the file/link names 
in the LJT diversion package will raise the naming interference (which is 
wanted with that package)


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Reply via email to