Re: GNOME 1 ABI involving libpng
Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org> writes:
> reassign 158165 gnome-libs
> thanks
> OK, we have Christian not even reading my messages and simply saying
> "Everyone else has jumped off a bridge! You haven't! Jump off the bridge
> already!". I'm not interested in jumping off bridges without any reason
> given, or in general.
> Can someone give me at least ONE reason why we should be breaking the
> ABI of GNOME 1 (which has been the same since at least GNOME 1.0 as
> far as PNG goes), and introducing incompatibilty with third party
> binaries and other distributions? GNOME 1 is in maintenance only mode
> upstream, and even that is slowing/stopping as resources are dedicated
> to GNOME 2.
One good reason is that :
$ sudo apt-get install libpng2-dev -s
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
imlib-dev libbonoboui2-dev libdirectfb-dev libgail-dev libglade2-dev
libgnome-desktop-dev libgnomecanvas2-dev libgnomeprintui-dev libgnomeui-dev
libgtk2.0-dev libgtkhtml2-dev libgtop2-dev libmagick5-dev
libpanel-applet2-dev libpng3-dev libwmf-dev libwnck-dev libzvbi-dev
libzvt2.0-dev
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libpng2-dev
And this is only the beginning. This number will grow seriously in
sarge.
Do you think an user will spend his time to remove/install each time he
want to compile something against G1 or G2 ?
[...]
> Can anyone give me this reason? Otherwise, I suggest we rebuild GNOME 1
> with libpng2, and leave it be. The GNOME 2 transition "plan" seems to
> be to ship with only GNOME 2 (binaries at least, the libs from 1 may still
> be around for some applications that aren't ported to GNOME 2 by release)
> in sarge, and if that's the case, we have no reason to break the ABI before
> the release.
We are waiting for what exactly ? G1 libraries will be at least in
sarge+2 and surely in sarge+1 a lot of applications aren't ported to G2
and some will never be ported to G2 like gtm.
> Christian, if you are going to reassign this bug yet again with no reason
> given other than everyone jumping off the bridge, the correct package to
> reassign to is "tech-ctte", and we'll sit here with this broken setup for
> a few months while someone works out if we care about our users using
> binary-only non-free software. I think the social contract is rather
> clear on this point, but maybe I'm wrong.
You just need to bump the gdk-pixbuf soname and build this package
against libpng3-dev. Whats wrong with that ? Nothing. Old packages
linked against libgdk-pixbuf2 still continue to works.
Christian
Reply to: