Re: zlib, libpng, for real...
I'm cc:'ing this to debian-devel---I don't think Jim will mind (if you
do, Jim, I apologize, but I could see myself repeating this).
In message <m0uBK8a-0002DnC@plato>, "James A. Robinson" writes:
>The package doesn't mention it, and I'm not at my Linux box so I can't
>check, but I was wondering if there might be a conflict between these
>and libgr? I seem to remember libgr holding libz and libpng. If
>libgr did hold them, is it being phased out?
Yes, there is a conflict, as libgr includes libz (though it's called
libgz there) and libpng. Both are unfortunately old versions, and
incompatable with at least two packages (Mosaic and Arena).
It is my intention to eventually make all the truly useful stuff in
libgr available separately (I'm not sure dynamically linked versions
of libppm & such constitute useful, but I might do them given
sufficient expressions of desire).
I know this is a potential nest of headaches, but the facts are:
1) We're at least two versions behind with libgr (which I don't intend
as a dig at Darren, just a fact).
2) The latest libgr isn't up to date for some of its libs
3) The libgr package isn't set up to allow us to upgrade single libs
if necessary.
If I had the ability to legislate stuff, yes, we'd be phasing out
libgr, as I think its philosophy, though sensible for a homegrown
system, doesn't work well with Debian.
Mike.
--
"Don't let me make you unhappy by failing to be contrary enough...."
Reply to: