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

Re: ofx and png transition

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 07:19:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> > Right, and for that reason I'm not going to spend too much time chasing my
> > tail on this right now given that a lot can change between now and
> > openssl/GNOME1 being ready.

> BTW, tied into the transition of Gnome1 and png is libofx.

> Thinking that the KDE transition was tied to this, and thinking that
> it would be a while before that was ready, I uploaded a new libofx to
> fix a few outstanding problems earlier this week.  I had been planning
> to do this a long time ago, but it was stalled waiting for the
> availability of a proper libcurl3-gnutls-dev library.  As it happens,
> this upload is currently waiting in the NEW queue.

> Well, that's when I thought that the package wouldn't be moving into
> testing any time soon.  But recent conversation suggests that this
> might not be so...

Indeed, the GNOME1 update should / needs to happen fairly soon.

But there seems to be a *huge* pile-up of libraries preventing that from
happening today.  I didn't realize how big it was until I looked at
gnucash's status just now.

gnucash needs the new libguppi-dev to be built in order to build on arm,
ia64, m68k, and sparc.

guppi needs the new libgal-dev in order to build.

gal0.x needs the new gnomeprint in order to build.

gnomeprint isn't uploaded yet.

there's a parallel pile with gnome-print -> bonobo -> libglade, which lots
of apps depend on before they can be rebuilt.

I'm afraid this has made for a very un-pretty transition.  On the bright
side, this is better than it would have been if gdk-imlib1 *hadn't* been
reintroduced as a wrapper package... :)

Anyway, adding a libofx rebuild to this right now is something we could do
without, yes.

> Based on the list traffic the last few days, especially the
> possibility that the gnome1 and png stuff might be forced into
> testing, I've asked the ftpmasters not to act on the upload for the
> moment, since it might needlessly delay entry into testing of the
> relevant bits.

I've reconfirmed this with Joerg Jaspert on IRC, so hopefully we'll get the
reprieve we need.

> However, note that one of the bugs (which was not reported in the BTS)
> that the upload fixes is a license violation (it's a GPLd program, and
> the existing version is linking with openssl).

Well, it's one license bug against a very, very large number of
FTBFS-in-testing bugs, so the scales kinda tip in favor of deferring libofx
for now...

> I wanted to make you aware of the situation (hence this note), in part
> in case ftpmasters ask you about it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: