Bug#782847: RFS: endless-sky/0.8.0-1 [ITP]
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:05:04PM -0500, Michael Zahniser wrote:
> The issue with libjpeg is that I'm relying on the JCS_EXT_BGRA extention in
> libjpeg-turbo to decode JPEGs in the proper byte order for on-screen
> display. The ordinary libjpeg does not provide that extension.
Right, that's something I wondered about.
> But, I suppose I could switch to putting the Debian-specific option first,
> since I don't think Ubuntu / Launchpad has issues with the "|" syntax. Or
> I could just use plain libjpeg-dev and trust that everyone building the
> package is on an OS where that means libjpeg-turbo, but that seems risky.
I don't know Ubuntu's autobuilders, so I don't know what's needed to make
them happy, other that every supported release (precise and up) has a
libjpeg-dev metapackage that depends on libjpeg-turbo8-dev. On Debian's
side, though, there are only two obvious solutions:
1. build-depending on libjpeg-dev first or only
2. build-depending on libjpeg62-turbo-dev first or only
Also, in Debian, wheezy (oldstable) doesn't have jpeg-turbo at all. I
wonder how much do you care for backports to oldstable. As that would
entail backporting libraries, I'd personally not bother at all.
Thus, my recommendation is libjpeg-dev, as that handles both Debian and
Ubuntu from a single source. In theory, one could add build-conflicts
against unsuitable libjpegs, but as that won't allow wheezy builds anyway
I wouldn't bother.
> The other changes sound easy, so if you let me know what you think is a
> good approach for libjpeg, I can upload a fixed package.
Sadly, I cannot upload today as I'm only _almost_ a DD... Account requests
are processed roughly monthly, and there might be some delay before the
keyring gets updated. But as others can sponsor you immediately, it can't
hurt to prepare the package soon.
Meow!
--
⢎⣉⠂⠠⠤⡀⣄⠤⡀⠠⡅⠀⠤⡧⠄⡄⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠠⡅⠀⡠⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⢴⠍⠀⡠⠤⡀⣄⠤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠤⡧⠄⣇⠤⡀⡠⠤⡀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⡄⡠⠤⡀⠠⠤⡀⡇⡠⠄⠀⠀⠀
⠢⠤⠃⠪⠭⠇⠇⠀⠇⠀⠣⠀⠀⠣⠄⠨⠭⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠣⠀⠬⠭⠂⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠣⠤⠃⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠣⠄⠇⠀⠇⠫⠭⠁⠀⠀⠀⠣⠣⠃⠫⠭⠁⠪⠭⠇⠏⠢⠄⠀⠄⠀
(https://github.com/kilobyte/braillefont for this hack)
Reply to: