[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 11:16:51AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:

> > 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?

Sorry, looking at the package, I thought I saw that sdl was still
compiled against libpng2.  If the package is already compiled against
libpng3, it's not necessary to go to extra work to roll it back; just
recompile against version-enabled libpng3.  All packages that currently
use sdl-image and libpng2 will still be broken -- this is nothing new --
but now they can choose between porting to libpng3, or just recompiling
against libpng2.

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

I'm sorry, I don't follow sdl development.  It was the (IMHO misguided)
suggestion to increment the SONAME that demanded my attention.  It also
doesn't sound to me like you've done anything wrong with your own
packages: it's only the lower-level libraries (here, libpng) that
require further attention.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp_WQj6cUqZF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: