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

Re: Bug#271673: librmagick-ruby1.8: librmagick-ruby unusable after upgrade to imagemagick-6.0.7.1



On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 07:28:06PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> tag 271673 + sid
> thanks

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 07:06:32PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > [ABI breakage in imagemagick] needs to be addressed urgently.
> > Otherwise we end up with packages compiled against binary incompatible
> > versions of imagemagick in the archive. I have therefore prepared an
> > NMU roughly the same way I did last December when we faced a similar
> > situation: I'll re-upload version 6.0.6.2 with a bumped epoch, based
> > on the last known-good 6.0.6.2-1.2. 
> (...)
> > It's important that the new upload makes it into sarge as soon as
> > possible.

> Unfortunately, getting the fixed imagemagick in is taking a few days
> longer than I had been hoping[1]. I'm Ccing -release because we need to
> watch out and re-upload each package that has meanwhile been built with
> the broken imagemagick 6.0.7.1. Otherwise, those packages will most
> likely contain subtle and hard to identify bugs. There's no simple,
> automated way to tell whether a package was built with the buggy
> version. We'll have to go by date, instead, so a delay of a few days
> might matter.

> So far, Steve has identified only k3d as a package that will need to
> be rebuilt. I'll start checking for others once the new imagemagick
> finally makes sid on all archs.

You can add imgseek to this list; it was uploaded today.

As for scripts, checking whether packages build-depending on
libmagick6-dev or libmagick++6-dev have new files in the archive seems
easiest.

$ find a/ale a/animal a/autotrace d/drip d/dvdauthor d/dx g/gnuift \
  k/kismet libr/librmagick-ruby p/php3 p/php4-imagick/ r/rss-glx \
  r/rubymagick x/xastir g/guikachu i/imgseek k/k3d k/koffice p/prestimel \
  p/pstoedit -mtime -11

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: