Re: Do not link GNOME apps with libpng3
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:09:08PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
> reassign 128377 gdk-imlib1
> thanks
>
> >> "SMR" == Steve M Robbins <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> writes:
>
> > reassign 128377 gnome-help
> > thanks
>
> > Hi Folks,
>
> > GNOME's imlib1 library is linked with libpng2, and nobody
> > knows how to gracefully handle the change from libpng2-->libpng3
>
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200201/msg00015.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200201/msg00243.html
>
> > So for the moment, I'm NOT planning to change imlib's linkage. Therefore,
> > all GNOME apps that build with both imlib1 and libpng, should build-depend
> > on libpng2-dev NOT libpng-dev.
>
> > In particular, gnome-core should revert this change:
>
> > gnome-core (1.4.0.4-15) unstable; urgency=low
>
> > * debian/control Replace libpng2-dev by libpng-dev in Build-Depends.
>
>
> > Now, the question is: should GNOME move to libpng3, and how? The QT/KDE
> > folks have sidestepped the problem by declaring that libqt2 is
> > remaining linked against libpng2, while libqt3 links with libpng3. I
> > don't see why we shouldn't adopt the same approach: leave imlib1
> > linked with libpng2 and let imlib's successor libraries link against
> > libpng3. Comments?
>
> I disagree completely. We should *always* compile all packages against
> the latest library version and not downgrade the builg dependency to an
> old library. We have did the same change to move to libdb3.
>
> I really want to know why recompiling gdk-imlib1 is too hard ?
Recompiling isn't hard. Managing the transition is hard. Did you
read the threads in debian-devel and debian-kde? Do you have a solution
to managing the transition?
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Reply to: