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

Re: What to do about libpng-dev?

On Thursday 03 January 2002 19:53, Oliver Johns wrote:
> On Thursday 03 January 2002 12:45 am, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > All I did with a new libqt upload was force a
> > resolution before the problem occured.   libpng3 is not
> > backwards compatable and yet both -dev packages provide
> > libpng-dev.
> OK.  The problem seems to be with libpng-dev.  I see that
> the package libpng-dev conflicts with itself!  Is that possibly
> correct?
> Shouldn't the conflicts and depends be as follows?
> libpng-dev conflicts with libpng2-dev and provides libpng2-dev
> libpng2-dev conflicts with libpng-dev and provides libpng-dev
> If that is the way it should be, then we ought to file a bug
> against lib libpng-dev for having a typo in its "conflicts"
> field?  (It lists a conflict with libpng-dev where it should
> list a conflict with libpng2-dev.)
> Will Ivan or some other guru please comment so a bug can be
> filed to alert Phillipe Troin (maintainer of libpng-dev) of this
> mess?
> Or is the problem more complicated than that?
(IMHO)It it more complicated. This only solves the problems for people who 
compile their own packages. Since libpng3 and libpng2 both provides only a 
libpng.so, libraries will get the one already loaded by the application. I.e. 
if libqt was build with libpng-dev it wants to  load the libpng3 library 
libpng.so.1.2.1, but when a KDE-program build against both libpng2-dev and 
libqt-dev loads. It will depend only upon ONE libpng and will only load it's 
own libpng.so.1.0.12. That way libqt will be talking with the wrong libpng. 
There's really a few solutions.. Moving the version into the lib-names geting 
libpng2.so and libpng3.so, or statically linking libqt against libpng, or 
letting all libraries build against libpng3 conflict with applications build 
against libpng2.
BTW. option number 2, then one I use at home, conflicts with the debian 
package law. So it is out of the question.


Reply to: