Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:05:09AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > What would be the consequences for sdl-image?
>
> All packages within Debian that link against libpng{2,3} should be
> recompiled against a version of the library that has symbol versioning
> enabled; until both the library and the application that reference
> libpng are recompiled, there is still a good chance that the application
> will segfault. Third-party software that's linked against libpng
> therefore also does not benefit until it is recompiled; but such apps
> must also be recompiled when libpng2 is phased out, so there's no real
> savings from the SONAME approach, IMHO.
I have no plans to change the SONAME in the sdl-image packages without
upstream doing the same.
> So basically, it means you just have to rebuild your packages, without
> modification. Once all packages which depend on libsdl-image1.2 have
> also been recompiled, whether against libpng2 or libpng3, you are free
> to migrate libsdl-image1.2 to libpng3 at your convenience.
I _have_ sdl-image already recompiled with libpng3, because sdl-image1.2-dev
could not be installed together with qt(3?)-dev, see #152302. This already
breaks a few packages.
So I have to revert to png2 now, wait until symbol versioning is in both png
packages, then recompile with that, and maybe then switch to use png3 in
sdl-image?
Wouldn't it be nice to coordinate this on the debian-sdl list I requested a
251 days ago?
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: