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

Re: imlib-linked-with-libpng3

Hi Steve,

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:43:45PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:

> I no longer believe that upstream will release any new versions of
> imlib and I plan to ask that imlib2 be removed from the archive.  I
> don't want to change the current imlib1 linkage since imlib is pretty
> much dormant and probably on its way out.

> There are six packages currently linked against imlib2:

> 	chinput		
> 	fnlib		
> 	kdegraphics	
> 	mgp		
> 	picturebook	
> 	wallp		

> I'm not sure whether they strictly require png3 or whether they could
> simply be rebuilt with imlib1 and libpng2.  In the past, however, some
> KDE folks have explicitly requested imlib+png3.

FWIW, fnlib does not require libpng itself; it is, however, linked
against libpng3 thanks to the usual libtool idiocy.

> What would be the best way to accomodate such a request?  I can
> imagine introducing a new package of imlib linked with libpng3.  But
> since it has to use the same SOVERSION as the current imlib1, it would
> have to conflict with imlib1.  Each individual admin could then choose
> to use imlib+png2 or to use imlib+png3.  However, each choice would
> have its own set of incompatible programs so this option doesn't
> appeal to me.

If upstream is dormant (and I know that's an understatement), you could
also try to coordinate with other vendors who might still ship imlib and
agree to pick a new soname anyway.  That seems a better choice than
creating a new package that conflicts with imlib1, IMHO.

> Another option is to drop the idea of imlib+png3.  The six packages
> mentioned above would then have to build either with png2 or somehow
> incorporate imlib into their source build.  For the maintainers of the
> six packages: is that feasible?

No problems here, at least.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpJ1YlKMKe9K.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: