Re: Status of libgr vs. other graphics libs (gimp dependencies).
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.960429220156.23760D-100000@brando.ece.utexas.edu>, Guy Maor writes:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Rob Browning wrote:
>> I recall a discussion about killing libgr in favor of individual
>> graphics libs. I'm may be getting a new GIMP release together to fix
>> a bug, and I was wondering what the status of this issue was.
>I think the discussion was favorable. zlib and libjpeg and libpng were
>all already packaged (though possible libjpeg has the wrong soname?),
Actually, libjpeg just isn't packaged like our other shared-lib
packages---it works fine, the soname is good, etc. Strictly a
packaging issue. I'd say it would be safe to rebuild GIMP against
libjpeg, and the new libjpeg6 should replace and conflict with the old
libjpeg, which will result in libjpeg being uninstalled cleanly.
I, too, will just take a moment to say that I think dpkg is the
greatest thing since sliced bread. I have come to an understanding
with dselect.
>After I upload those 2 packages, libgr should go away. Feel free to
>package GIMP though.
I don't remember if GIMP could deal with libtiff or libpbm, but if it
does, it would be good to wait until those are out, since I think GIMP
is the only thing that depends on libgr.
Mike.
--
"Don't let me make you unhappy by failing to be contrary enough...."
Reply to: