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

Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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.

Can you point me to the section that points to that need?

>> 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.

I still fail to see why you want a conflict. Either it should be
coinstallable or there should only be one version of the package IMHO.

> 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.

Indeed, to avoid the current mess...



Reply to: