Re: Uploaded libjpeg 6a-11 (source i386) to master
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Mark Mickan wrote:
>
> > ============ From gs-aladdin/make.txt ==============
> > The *head.mak files also compile and link the jpeg library into the
> > executable. Ghostscript doesn't offer a SHARE option for this library,
> > because in order to be compatible with Adobe interpreters, Ghostscript has
> > to compile the code with the non-standard definition
> > #define D_MAX_BLOCKS_IN_MCU 64
> > This is in contradiction to the JPEG standard, but at least some real
> > PostScript files require this. A shared system library would not be
> > compiled this way.
> > ====================================================
> >
> > After discussion with Marco (gs-aladdin maintainer), we have found 3
> > possible solutions.
> >
> > 1. Statically link gs-aladdin with patched libjpeg (which is against policy)
> >
> > 2. Recompile all packages depending on libjpeg (which would require the major
> > version to be changed since the interface has been changed)
> >
> > 3. Leave it as it is and let some ps files be broken (which seems silly if
> > we can fix it)
> >
> > At the moment we're going with option 3, but any other input is welcome.
> > I personally feel 1 might be an even better option, but it may require some
> > change in policy.
> >
> I agree with your technical decision. Number 1 is probably the best fix. I
> disagree that policy needs to be changed to accomodate this "deviation".
Hi,
my (gs-aladdin maintainer) perplexities against approach 1 do not concern
policy. My perplexities are mostly on the necessity to rebuild gs-aladdin
whenever a bug is fixed in the library.
However, i agree with Mark that it is silly to leave the situation as it
is now, so, i'll try to implement 1.
Now, how can i do that in a clean way, in particular wrt autocompilation
on different architectures? Should i include the libjpeg source in the
.diff file? Or should i assume that the source is already available at,
say, ../libjpeg-6a? Any comment or link to other package with similar
problems is welcome.
As a long term solution, i still feel that 2 is better (however,
we have to wait until the next major release of libjpeg).
Thank you,
Marco
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: