Ryan Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > reassign 158165 gnome-libs > thanks
> OK, we have Christian not even reading my messages and simply saying > "Everyone else has jumped off a bridge! You haven't! Jump off the bridge > already!". I'm not interested in jumping off bridges without any reason > given, or in general. > Can someone give me at least ONE reason why we should be breaking the > ABI of GNOME 1 (which has been the same since at least GNOME 1.0 as > far as PNG goes), and introducing incompatibilty with third party > binaries and other distributions? GNOME 1 is in maintenance only mode > upstream, and even that is slowing/stopping as resources are dedicated > to GNOME 2. One good reason is that : $ sudo apt-get install libpng2-dev -s Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: imlib-dev libbonoboui2-dev libdirectfb-dev libgail-dev libglade2-dev libgnome-desktop-dev libgnomecanvas2-dev libgnomeprintui-dev libgnomeui-dev libgtk2.0-dev libgtkhtml2-dev libgtop2-dev libmagick5-dev libpanel-applet2-dev libpng3-dev libwmf-dev libwnck-dev libzvbi-dev libzvt2.0-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: libpng2-dev And this is only the beginning. This number will grow seriously in sarge. Do you think an user will spend his time to remove/install each time he want to compile something against G1 or G2 ? [...] > Can anyone give me this reason? Otherwise, I suggest we rebuild GNOME 1 > with libpng2, and leave it be. The GNOME 2 transition "plan" seems to > be to ship with only GNOME 2 (binaries at least, the libs from 1 may still > be around for some applications that aren't ported to GNOME 2 by release) > in sarge, and if that's the case, we have no reason to break the ABI before > the release. We are waiting for what exactly ? G1 libraries will be at least in sarge+2 and surely in sarge+1 a lot of applications aren't ported to G2 and some will never be ported to G2 like gtm. > Christian, if you are going to reassign this bug yet again with no reason > given other than everyone jumping off the bridge, the correct package to > reassign to is "tech-ctte", and we'll sit here with this broken setup for > a few months while someone works out if we care about our users using > binary-only non-free software. I think the social contract is rather > clear on this point, but maybe I'm wrong. You just need to bump the gdk-pixbuf soname and build this package against libpng3-dev. Whats wrong with that ? Nothing. Old packages linked against libgdk-pixbuf2 still continue to works. Christian
