On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:53:50PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:43:45PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > 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.
I was in fact having email discussions with both upstream and with
a Red Hat maintainer last August & September. We had mutually
agreed to pick a new soname. As Chris pointed out, Red Hat has
gone ahead and released imlib1 with the new soname.
I was waiting for the new upstream release for fear of violating a
rule about changing the soname from upstream. You're suggesting we
just go ahead. I'm fine with that. I expect that any new upstream
release would have to take into account the soname of the
currently-shipping Red Hat package anyway.
If changing the soname for imlib1 bothers anyone, do let me know now.
I want to emphasize that this is only for imlib1: I have no plan to
change anything with gdk-imlib.