[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

The broken libjpeg-6b is in RH 5.1

Argh.  The RH5.1 finally showed up at the local mirror.  They kept the
screwed up libjpeg that's been sitting on ftp.gnome.org for the last
month. I told them it was broken.  Even sent a patch to the guy that
packaged it.  If they were't going to do it right, they shouldn't have
upgraded to libjpeg-6b yet.

Now any program compiled against the Red Hat 5.0 libjpeg won't work
with Red Hat 5.1, and they are ignoring the upstream choice of a
shared library name (which would have been pretty clear if they read
the beginning of the makefile). I really though that if they didn't
have time to fix libjpeg-6b, they'd fall back on an older version
rather than introduce this incompatibility.  (And I have no idea why
they would decide to the _same_ soname as the old one.)

No, I didn't send a bug report to bugs@redhat.com before now.  How do
you file a bug against a package that doesn't officially exist yet?  I
can file a bug now, but I have no idea how they are going to fix it.
If people start compile programs with the libjpeg in RedHat 5.1, it
will be impossible to run on those programs on same system as programs
compiled against the libjpeg in RedHat 5.0.

Oh well, consider this a bug report (it's a blind carbon copy):

libjpeg-6b-3.*.rpm in Red Hat 5.1 contains a library with soname
libjpeg.so.6 which in not compatible with the library in Red Hat 5.0
that has the same soname (contained in the libjpeg-6a-1.*.rpm
package).  Moreover, the package doesn't use the soname recommend by
the upstream authors, libjpeg.so.62.0.0, which it would automatically
have if compiled correctly.  ("./configure --with-shared --with-static")

I sent Christian Gafton details a few weeks ago.  The "make install"
also correctly installs the shared lib so the lines in the spec file
that manually copy and link it can be deleted. The patch to the
makefile is no longer necessary.

It's harder to fix now that it's been released.  A devel and shared
library package should be made with the correct soname.  A package
should also be made with just the shared library of one of the older
ones.  (I would go with libjpeg-6a with soname libjpeg.so.6 for
compatibility with programs compiled with Red Hat 5.0 and pretend that
this libjpeg-6b-3 never happened - but one thing is certain, you can
only maintain compatibility with one of libjpeg-6a-1 and


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: