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

Re: imlib-linked-with-libpng3

 Chinput can use any of libpng2 or libpng3, it just need a rebuild.

Yu Guanghui <ygh at dlut.edu.cn>
Network Center
Dalian University of Technology, China

引用 "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins@videotron.ca>:

> Hello,
> I'd like to solicit opinions about what to do with
> imlib-linked-against-libpng3.
> Until August 2002, the Debian imlib packages were linked with libpng2.
> Even after libpng3 was released in early 2002, imlib remained linked
> with the older libpng2.  This was done to retain the ABI of imlib,
> especially the ABI of the GNOME version, gdk-imlib.
> Imlib is more-or-less dormant upstream.  However, in late August, I
> was under the impression that upstream imlib was going to release a
> new version (with new SONAME) that would be linked with libpng3.  In
> anticipation of that, I introduced imlib2/imlib-dev into Debian but
> filed a Grave bug against it to keep it from moving to testing.
> It is still not in testing.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> -Steve

欢迎使用大连理工大学web邮件系统: http://mail.dlut.edu.cn

Reply to: