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

Re: JPEG 8 transition

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:27:12AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Bill,
> Bill Allombert [2010-02-14 10:18 +0100]:
> > The first step is to fix packages that Depend on 'libjpeg62-dev'.  They should
> > Depend on 'libjpeg-dev' instead. Please do not make them Depend on
> > 'libjpeg8-dev', or 'libjpeg-dev|libjpeg62-dev' or 'libjpeg-dev|libjpeg8-dev' or
> > other combinaisons since this is useless and can only cause problem is the
> > future.
> This sounds wrong, though. So far it has been good practice (and
> lintian complains about it, too) to specify a real dependency first,
> and only then a virtual alternative; and for libraries it seems like
> an abuse of virtual packages to me in the first place:

I do not think this practice is good when there is always a single alternative.
For example, it is better to depend on libc-dev than 'libc-dev|libc6-dev'
because libc6-dev might not exist on some Debian architecture.

Naming the package libjpeg8-dev allowed me to upload it, get it built and
tested, before it started to provide libjpeg-dev.

>  * If these were, and are expected to, keep API backwards
>    compatibility, the binary package should be called libjpeg-dev,
>    without any virtual packages. Then a simple binNMU would be enough.

Well, if every package refers to it by the name libjpeg-dev and not libjpeg8-dev
then we achieve the same goal. 

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: