Re: short-term plans for libtiff

[Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>]

Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org> (19/05/2012):
>> Can you think of any reason that this could possibly cause any harm?
>> I don't think it will since it won't have any impact at all on
>> packages that don't explicitly build depend on libtiff5-alt-dev.  I'm
>> going to go ahead and do the upload.  If it's a bad idea for some
>> reason that I am failing to see, it can always be rejected from NEW.
>> 
>> If this is a bad idea for some reason, I would really like to find a
>> solution so that vips and nip2 (among others) can have bigtiff support
>> before wheezy.
>
> I'd appreciate if you could give us a few days to get back to you on
> this. I think Julien is more or less the only one of us who looked into
> libtiff stuff, so I think it makes sense to wait for his input.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.

I will wait as you request.  For what it's worth, I have (locally) built
vips and nip2 with this change, and they work perfectly.  No build
dependency conflicts, and the software opens and saves bigtiff files
properly.  There's also ITK packages (medical) where the maintainer has
contacted me about not being able to support bigtiff because of this
same issue.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>