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 circumstances. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature