Re: Accepted sdl-image1.2 1.2.2-1 (i386 source)
>> Steve Langasek <email@example.com> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com