On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 07:02:17PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Adam D. Barratt >> <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: >> > Or that gd needs to not tie its own transition to libtiff, and should go >> > back to using libtiff4 until we're ready to do the tiff transition. >> >> JFTR I have no problem doing that, I didn't have any particular reason >> to update to tiff 4.x. I just did update all B-D. > > If you're going to update B-Ds, you might as well update to libtiff-dev > rather than libtiff5-dev (no need for a real alternative since it only > has a single provider in the archive at any one time). That way it'll > all be binNMUable once it's time to transition.
I did: $ grep tiff debian/control B-D: libtiff5-alt-dev | libtiff-dev, D (libgd-dev): libtiff5-alt-dev | libtiff5-dev | libtiff-dev O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljhhg__xd2uwyrci_jojhuycyreme5dqrwe_h4dyzfkl+p...@mail.gmail.com
