On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:38:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:54:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > >> Julien Cristau wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:08:41 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > >>> > >>>> It is API compatible. As I said, I have rebuilt locally the 311 packages > >>>> that build-depends on libjpeg62-dev against libjpeg8-dev, so there is no > >>>> risk of API incompatibility. > >>>> > >>> Then they shouldn't have different names. > > > > They do not: libjpeg-dev was libjpeg62-dev and now it is libjpeg8-dev. > > The problem is that some packages Depends on libjpeg62-dev instead of > > libjpeg-dev as they should. > > > > libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility. > > Can you point me to the section that points to that need?
<http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_4.0.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html> Library: libjpeg SONAME: libjpeg.so.62 So if you want to build LSB packages, you need libjpeg62-dev. > >> Indeed or put it differently: if you want to change the name of the > >> package, it should provide libjpeg62-dev instead of conflicting with it. > > > > I do not disagree, and I could for example rename libjpeg62-dev to > > libjpeg6b-dev and update the conflict. > > I still fail to see why you want a conflict. Either it should be > coinstallable or there should only be one version of the package IMHO. The conflict is needed because they both install the file /usr/include/jpeglib.h. > > However I was told essentially not to do that in > > <[email protected]> > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/09/msg00216.html> > > Pierre Habouzit wanted packages build-depending on libjpeg-dev to > > transition first. Unfortunately the wrong 'Depends: libjpeg62-dev' > > need to be fixed first. I have reported bugs to that effect. > > Indeed, to avoid the current mess... I am not sure what you means, but I proposed to do thing differently: to rename libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and to have libjpeg8-dev provide libjpeg62-dev, but this was not accepted because that would mean that packages build-depending on libjpeg-dev and libjpeg62-dev had to transition at the same time. So libjpeg8-dev does not provide libjpeg62-dev and that lead to the current situation which require to fix packages that _Depends_ on libjpeg62-dev first. Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
