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

Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)

>> Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

 > Sorry, looking at the package, I thought I saw that sdl was still
 > compiled against libpng2.
 The current libsdl-image1.2 for i386 in sid is compiled against
 libpng3.  The problem is that sdl-image1.2 Build-Depends on libpng-dev
 which is provided by libpng2-dev, too.  It might have happened that
 some architectures builded sdl-image1.2 against libpng2-dev I think.
 woody's is compiled against libpng2 on i386.
 > but now they can choose between porting to libpng3, or just recompiling
 > against libpng2.

 JFYI, there's no porting involved in practically 100% of the cases.

 > 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.

 Yes.  We just have to be careful about not breaking compatibility with
 other distributions because SDL is something used by thrid parties
 (Loki -- RIP -- and the like)


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

Reply to: