Hi Josselin, On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Here is a summary of the important changes I'm planning for libpng in > etch. > * Removal of the entire libpng source package: libpng2, libpng2-dev, > libpng10-0, libpng10-dev. All applications currently linking to libpng > 1.0 will have to be rebuilt against libpng 1.2. As sarge's libpng > packages include symbol versioning, it can be done smoothly. Some > packages will temporarily depend indirectly on both versions, but they > shouldn't be broken. Sounds good. > * Removal of the libpng3 binary package, as only 2 packages in sarge > still depend on this one. Maybe we can keep it, though, as some > third-party binaries could require libpng.so.3. Are there third-party binaries known to depend on it? I didn't think the libpng.so.3 soname made it very far before being replaced. At the very least, it ought to move to oldlibs at that point, I think. > * Removal of the libpng3-dev binary package, adding a Provides: in > libpng12-dev. I believe autobuilders can cope with such a change, as > they are already dealing with packages build-depending on libpng-dev, > which is a virtual package. Should do, though it's also reasonable to file bugs against such packages asking them to switch to libpng12-dev. There are some packages with a versioned build-dependency on libpng3-dev, so they would FTBFS once this change was made if they were not fixed beforehand; it's probably reasonable to file (wishlist) bugs against those packages pre-sarge. > * Removal of the private symbols that are exported in the library. This > can break some applications directly using these private symbols. Which > means: it shouldn't happen, but you never know how software authors can > have stupid ideas. Given that there's the potential for breakage, why would you go to the pain of removing the symbols once they've been exported in a stable release? Once published, the damage is done; I don't see any sense in removing them until something else is known to break the (private) ABI. Have you talked to upstream about this? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature