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

Re: libtiff transition: packages still not done

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:36:01PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> On dim, 2004-08-01 at 19:17 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > Please pardon the cross-post, but I think this should go to both
> > debian-devel and debian-release.  As of about August 1, 23:50 UTC, 70
> > packages in sid still haven't been re-uploaded with the libtiff3g to
> > libtiff4 change.  Some may still be waiting for library dependencies
> > -- I haven't made any attempt to weed these out.

> I've just noticed that libtiff doesn't have any versioned symbols. Is
> there any kind of transition for programs that link both directly and
> indirectly to libtiff? Otherwise, we'll start to be in a pain as deep as
> libpng's...

Are there any packages in this situation *with cause*?  So far, all the
packages I've found that have direct and indirect linkage to libtiff4
are in this situation only by error (old version of libtool,
overly-enthusiastic foo-config scripts).  While NMUing, about half the
packages I've looked at had unnecessary libtiff3g dependencies that
could be dropped.

Now, this means that a partial upgrade where the libraries are upgraded
and the applications aren't could still cause a problem.  Fortunately,
most of the affected applications depend on things like ImageMagick or
GNOME libraries, which have also had soname changes since woody.  So I
think this corner case is not worth the additional effort under the

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: