On 06-Dec-98 Oscar Levi wrote:
> 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.
As soon as all the packages that depend on 6a have been recompiled against 6b,
we can remove 6a. Of course, this assumes that people don't have commercial
software with a dependency on 6a.
> What is more bothersome, though, is that the 6a source is *not* the
> original source. It doesn't even compile. 6b is OK.
I adopted 6a some time ago, but have never needed to upload the source for it,
since it was already on master. It is likely that the package was originally
created before we started using pristine source. Is this what you mean by
"*not* the original source"? I have compiled several versions over the last
year or so and have never experienced any problems. What problems do you have
compiling it?
> 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?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Mickan | NetSpot Pty Ltd
Email: mmickan@iweb.net.au | 183 Melbourne Street, North Adelaide
ICQ: 9274293 | http://www.netspot.com.au/
Attachment:
pgpWBqxNAGkSj.pgp
Description: PGP signature