On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:38:37PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > Hi Bill, > > sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 16:29:17 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > One issue with this transition is that a number of packages still depends > > on > > libjpeg62-dev instead of libjpeg-dev. This might cause packages to have > > uninstallable > > build-dependency until they are fixed. > > > I guess that depends if we need to keep building some things against > libjpeg62. If not, maybe libjpeg62-dev can become a dummy transitional > package for libjpeg8-dev. If yes, then those packages depending on > libjpeg62-dev should have bugs filed (probably at important severity > for now).
Given the large legacy of libjpeg62, it is probably safer to keep it. Also having libjpeg62-dev an alias for libjpeg8-dev is going to be confusing. I will report bug to packages that Depends on libjpeg62-dev as a first step. 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] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110609211303.GA24685@yellowpig
