On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:01:38PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Dear developers, > > > > > > > > There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it > > > > not yet cleared for building packages against it. > > > > > > > > If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev' > > > > (without the 62) to ease the transition. > > > > > > Err no, please don't. > > > > The fact that some packages Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev is merely an > > historical artefact. > > I know, the fact that it's the case though, allow us to plan for a > smoother transition. That'd be silly to not leverage that fact. > > > > First I'd like to see packages already build-depending on libjpeg-dev to > > > be rebuilt against a libjpeg7 that provides libjpeg-dev. > > > > Actually, I have already done a test-rebuild of all the packages that > > build-depends on libjpeg62-dev or libjpeg-dev against a modified libjpeg7-dev > > that provide both libjpeg62-dev and libjpeg-dev, and there is only six FTBFS > > five of them being just test-suite update, and I send a patch for the sixth > > (netpbm) in the BTS. > > That' be great (if not already done) to open important bugs on those > packages please, so that we can track that down. > > I just opened a meta-bug to track the libjpeg transition on > release.debian.org, please mark those bugs as blocking the meta-bug, > it'll help us track them That would be #547393 -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature