Re: libpng prognosis
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Mostly there's a long list of packages which need to go in ahead of
>> new libpng, which aren't ready.
> Are zero-day NMUs appropriate for any of these:
>> * penguin-command needs a new upload with fixed build-depends (bug
>> which justifies removal of the version in testing if necessary)
>> * printbill likewise (bug 328333)
>> * tuxpuck likewise (bug 328335)
>> * xnecview likewise (bug 328334)
Well, printbill and penguin-command have very recently elevated severities
(as in, an hour ago), so maybe the maintainers should be given a day or
two. Zero-day NMUs certainly seem appropriate for tuxpuck and xnecview.
>> * libgtk-perl has to go in ahead of libpng (or be removed), but it
>> on new perl and new imlib, and so on the whole gnome 1 tangle.
>> GNOME 1 tangle in before lipng in. ;-)
> The gnome-1 tangle is the png tangle.
Well, we've done a little detangling by avoiding the libpng shlibs bump; the
hope was to put the things 'broken by' new libpng through *before* new
libpng rather than having to do it simultaneously -- hence my describing
them as different tangles, even though they have the same original cause.
> But why does the new libpng
> fail with the old libgtk-perl?
The old libgtkxmhtml-perl depended on libpng10-0 directly, and libpng10-0
goes away when new libpng gets in.