On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 06:14:22PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2010-02-10 17:03 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > This is the list of packages that Depends on libjpeg62-dev *and* cause > > conflicts when building package that build-depends on libjpeg-dev. > > > > libcupsimage2-dev > > libdirectfb-dev > > libdjvulibre-dev > > libgd2-noxpm-dev > > libgdal1-dev > > libhdf5-serial-dev > > libqt3-mt-dev > > libsane-dev > > libsdl-image1.2-dev > > libtiff4-dev > > libwmf-dev > > libwraster3-dev > > Are these really the only ones?
Yes, however maybe they cannot be rebuild due to Conflict. I will check that before reporting bugs. > What about the 300+ packages that > currently build-depend on libjpeg62-dev, could they safely switch to > libjpeg-dev if the above packages were fixed? No, there are other package Depending on libjpeg62-dev that have rdepends. > > I think they should be fixed to Build-Depends on libjpeg-dev and > > Depends on libjpeg-dev|libjpeg62-dev, the '|libjpeg62-dev' being > > necessary for building packages that Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev. > > That sounds reasonable. However, I am not quite sure the "|libjpeg62-dev' is a sane option. Packages might end up being built against the wrong header files. > > I do not disagree with the suggestion of libjpeg8-dev providing both > > libjpeg-dev and libjpeg62-dev, thought I would still like to provide > > libjpeg62-dev for people needing to build binary compatible with other linux > > distributions, but the release manager were not in favour of this option. > > Actually, libjpeg62-dev is needed to build LSB compliant software that use > libjpeg, so losing that would not be very nice. Well, what I suggest: I rename the current binary package libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and I change libjpeg8-dev to provide libjpeg62-dev. But then we are back to the transition the release managers tried to avoid. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
