On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:00:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Sven Joachim wrote: > > On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > > > >> Bill Allombert wrote: > >>> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility. > >> Can you point me to the section that points to that need? > > > > http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG > > > > It's the same in LSB 4.0. > > So libjpeg62 has to be remained, though libjpeg62-dev does not have to > stay and could be provided by libjpeg8-dev like I proposed from the start. libjpeg62-dev have to stay for *building* LSB package. But anyway this whole discussion is a distraction. The only real issue is whether we transition all package build-depending on libjpeg*-dev at once, or whether we transition first the one that build-depend on libjpeg-dev. In the first case, I rename the current libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and change libjpeg8-dev to provide libjpeg62-dev and conflict with libjpeg6b-dev. In the second case, we have to fix all packages that _Depends_ on libjpeg62-dev to depend on libjpeg-dev instead. Following the instructions given in <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/09/msg00216.html> I implemented the second solution, but I have no objection with implementing the first one if the release team change its mind. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballombe@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature