On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:54:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:08:41 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > >> It is API compatible. As I said, I have rebuilt locally the 311 packages > >> that build-depends on libjpeg62-dev against libjpeg8-dev, so there is no > >> risk of API incompatibility. > >> > > Then they shouldn't have different names. They do not: libjpeg-dev was libjpeg62-dev and now it is libjpeg8-dev. The problem is that some packages Depends on libjpeg62-dev instead of libjpeg-dev as they should. libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility. > Indeed or put it differently: if you want to change the name of the > package, it should provide libjpeg62-dev instead of conflicting with it. I do not disagree, and I could for example rename libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and update the conflict. However I was told essentially not to do that in <20090918230812.GA26040@artemis.corp> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/09/msg00216.html> Pierre Habouzit wanted packages build-depending on libjpeg-dev to transition first. Unfortunately the wrong 'Depends: libjpeg62-dev' need to be fixed first. I have reported bugs to that effect. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballombe@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature