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

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

Wouldn't it be nice to coordinate this on the debian-sdl list I requested a
251 days ago?


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

Reply to: