On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Dear developers, > > > > There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it > > not yet cleared for building packages against it. > > > > If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to > > 'libjpeg-dev' > > (without the 62) to ease the transition. > > Err no, please don't.
The fact that some packages Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev is merely an historical artefact. > First I'd like to see packages already build-depending on libjpeg-dev to > be rebuilt against a libjpeg7 that provides libjpeg-dev. Actually, I have already done a test-rebuild of all the packages that build-depends on libjpeg62-dev or libjpeg-dev against a modified libjpeg7-dev that provide both libjpeg62-dev and libjpeg-dev, and there is only six FTBFS five of them being just test-suite update, and I send a patch for the sixth (netpbm) in the BTS. I can provide you the logs if you want. > _Only then_ you will open a mass bug on all packages that b-d on > libjpeg62-dev to ask them to move to libjpeg-dev instead, so that the > transition remains manageable. The set of packages build-depending on libjpeg-dev instead of libjpeg62-dev is pretty random, and the distinction will only bring confusion, with most packages ending depending on both libraries. A better plan is to start to rebuild the libraries packages that depend on libjpeg and then rebuild the other packages against them. > I'm not sure if we're ready for this transition yet though, I'll let luk > or other RA/RM check if now is the best moment to do so. In any case, I do not plan to start this transition just now, there are more things to check first. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
