On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:09:08PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote: > reassign 128377 gdk-imlib1 > thanks > > >> "SMR" == Steve M Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > reassign 128377 gnome-help > > thanks > > > Hi Folks, > > > GNOME's imlib1 library is linked with libpng2, and nobody > > knows how to gracefully handle the change from libpng2-->libpng3 > > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200201/msg00015.html > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200201/msg00243.html > > > So for the moment, I'm NOT planning to change imlib's linkage. Therefore, > > all GNOME apps that build with both imlib1 and libpng, should build-depend > > on libpng2-dev NOT libpng-dev. > > > In particular, gnome-core should revert this change: > > > gnome-core (1.4.0.4-15) unstable; urgency=low > > > * debian/control Replace libpng2-dev by libpng-dev in Build-Depends. > > > > Now, the question is: should GNOME move to libpng3, and how? The QT/KDE > > folks have sidestepped the problem by declaring that libqt2 is > > remaining linked against libpng2, while libqt3 links with libpng3. I > > don't see why we shouldn't adopt the same approach: leave imlib1 > > linked with libpng2 and let imlib's successor libraries link against > > libpng3. Comments? > > I disagree completely. We should *always* compile all packages against > the latest library version and not downgrade the builg dependency to an > old library. We have did the same change to move to libdb3. > > I really want to know why recompiling gdk-imlib1 is too hard ?
Recompiling isn't hard. Managing the transition is hard. Did you read the threads in debian-devel and debian-kde? Do you have a solution to managing the transition? -Steve -- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants
