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

Re: The broken libjpeg-6b is in RH 5.1

[ Watch the followups to the original message, apparently bcc preserves
the orginal To: line. ]

Steve Dunham <dunham@cps.msu.edu> writes:

> 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.)

Red Hat also uses the (buggy) stock version of libtool, so any
libtool-generated library is "static" (doesn't reference any other
shared library).

The reason I Bcc'd this here was as an example of the advantages
Debian garners from an open development model and a dedication to

It seems that every time I contemplate switching to Red Hat, I get
bitten - the first time by the mess in the contrib section and the
second time by these problems in the main distribution (they should
have beta tested - they don't have the staff to catch everything

Nonetheless, I am, at the very least, going to continue to play
devil's advocate for RPM to encourage improvements to dpkg. :)


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

Reply to: