Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition
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?
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
> > However I was told essentially not to do that in
> > <20090918230812.GA26040@artemis.corp>
> > <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.
Imagine a large red swirl here.