On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 12:25:39AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > "Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > About the new SONAME for imlib. It would be nice if we had > > cooperation across distributions about this. I've emailed upstream a > > few times over the the last month or two about picking a standard > > soname, but have heard nothing back. For their "rawhide", RedHat went > > ahead and linked in libpng3 *without* changing the SONAME. So I think > > we can kiss cross-distribution compatibility goodbye. > > Note that we went to some care to maintain the ABI of gdk_imlib, by > forcing it to load libpng with private symbols.
Yes, true. That is very clever. Nevertheless, REMOVING some symbols is a change of the ABI. I thought it best to change the SONAME of gdk_imlib to reflect that. If I have to change the soname anyway, then why not leave the symbols in gdk_imlib? > For plain imlib, my basic sentiment is that it's barely maintained, > deprecated, not used by many things, and not a very good library... You are likely right about this, and I suspect the same applies to gdk_imlib as well. Nonetheless, it is imlib that is being used in some KDE apps, as I understand it. > its non-maintenance is why this problem exists, since the real > solution here is for upstream to release a parallel-installable new > version that uses libpng3. Yes: change the SONAME, and the libraries are parallel installable! Well, I suppose you meant the developer packages, too. That would be nice, but that's a separate discussion. The binary libraries are parallel installable by design -- as long as the SONAMEs differ. > Still the soname probably should be incremented. I can do that still, > rawhide is just a beta, it's not released. Great! How about we bump it to "2", then. If you agree, I'll stick the patches (trivial changes to Makefile.am & configure.in) into bugzilla over the weekend. Cheers, -Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
