Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:50:44 -0700: > Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Package: gdk-imlib1 >> Version: 1.9.14-22 >> Severity: critical >> Justification: breaks unrelated software >> >> Unless there is something big I am missing, gdk-imlib should >> certainly not take it upon itself to force the removal of >> libpng2 and all its dependencies... > > There is something big you are missing. > > libpng2 is being removed from Debian. libpng12-0 is a suitable > replacement, source and binary compatible.
Doesn't seem to be binary compatible at all. Shoot me for using a closed sourced app, but xv doesn't like me symlinking /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 to /usr/lib/libpng12.so, but copes fine with libpng10.so For now, I've just manually copied the old libpng10.so over, and let dpkg get rid of libpng10, since I don't think I am running any apps that run both gdk-imlib1 and libpng2 simultaneously. Why, instead of conflicting, couldn't you simply let apps that depend on both to segfault, as you say, and then let users submit bugs to the app in question that needs to be rebuilt anyway, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? You seem to justify that this saves apps from outside debian from breaking, but it breaks xv. -- TimC "The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know their system has a /dev/null already." -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing the praises of 8mm Exabytes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
