On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 01:54:31AM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: > > > Is anyone working on moving libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2? libgda0, libgda-common, > > > bonobo and libglade-gnome0 from png2 to png3? > > > > I think libglade-gnome0 need to be NMUed, no maintainer upload since > > november 2001 (I'll do that). Takuo is still alive for bonobo and Akira > > for libgda0 too. Ryan is more or less inactive for libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 > > I don't know if a NMU is needed. > > > No, I am not inactive. Who came up with the bright idea to break binary > > Then why you don't package the latest gdm tarball ? I've filed a bug for > this new release 90 days ago and never got any reply. Because I'm waiting for the gnome2 mess to settle somewhat. I've also not been impressed with security problems with the gnome2 releases thus far, so I'm letting that development settle as well. > > compatibility in gnome1, which breaks compatibility with other distros and > > third party software? Can someone give me a really _GOOD_ reason why I > > want to do this? For Gnome2, other distros and third party software can > > use png3. Leave gnome1 at png2. > > The goal for sarge is to switch to libpng3 In gnome1? Why? This breaks old stuff needlessly. I fully agree for gnome2, but why are we breaking a released, widely-in-use by third-party people ABI? -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org) The opinions expressed here are my own.
Attachment:
pgpNsUbg7tqjZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature