Re: Oddities about jpeg_6a, advice requested
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 05:31:39PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
> Oscar Levi <elf@buici.com> writes:
>
> > It is my understanding that the 6b libraries are a replacement for the
> > 6a libraries and that there is no reason to keep the oold ones
> > around. The presence of the two versions errs a little too far to the
> > left.
>
> You keep the old ones around to run programs that were compiled
> against "libjpeg.so.6a". The code contained in the tar file named
> "libjpeg6b" is not binary compatible with the old version of the
> library. (The library generated by the source code labelled
> "libjpeg6b" should have the soname "libjpeg.so.62".)
>
> The 6a packages are only needed for backwards compatibility, if you're
> working on an architecture that never had "libjpeg.so.6a", you can
> ignore them.
I was given the impression by Tom Lane that 6b and 6a were binary
compatible. Is it about a name change?
> > What is more bothersome, though, is that the 6a source is *not* the
> > original source. It doesn't even compile. 6b is OK.
>
> > Anyway, Joel Klecker <espy@debian.org> claims to have fixed this bug
> > some time ago. It is in the changelog as fixed. Is this true?
>
> > It seems to me there should only be one libjpeg package and it should
> > be called libjpeg or libjpeg6. Do we care?
>
> Are you talking about source packages or binary packages?
It's about consistency. Not important, but helpful.
>
> We need more than one version of libjpeg, "libjpegg6a" is needed to
> run old programs which were compiled against "libjpeg.so.6a" and
> "libjpeg62" is need to run programs compiled against the current
> "libjpeg.so.62".
>
> Because of the GPL, we should have source packages for each of these
> binary packages.
Yes. The source package for 6a ships with an orig.tar.gz file that is
*not* the original. Again, not tragic since the true original source
is available on the net. Still, we're deceiving people.
Reply to: