On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:01:38PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > 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. > > That' be great (if not already done) to open important bugs on those > packages please, so that we can track that down.
This the summary of the result: 1) FTBFS in sid with libjpeg62-dev anyway: avifile: FTBFS #526536 blender: FTBFS #545622 crystalspace: FTBFS #543082 dillo: FTBFS #515271 emacs22: FTBFS #545497 emacs23: FTBFS #545379 fgfs-atlas: FTBFS #545593 gqcam: FTBFS #515314 graphviz: FTBFS #542979 hdf-eos5: FTBFS #545833 kaffe: FTBFS #529872 ntop: FTBFS #527757 openvrml: FTBFS #490334, #534055 paintlib: FTBFS #546167 player: FTBFS #524746 rezound: FTBFS #529952, #529967 slony1: FTBFS #536929 vegastrike: FTBFS #530483, #537005 stage: uninstallable build-dep->#524746 2) Package too large to be tested: openoffice.org: too large 3) Package that fail to compile: netpbm-free: patch #546416 4) Package that build but fail test-suite: sdop: testsuite graphicsmagick: testsuite libgd-gd2-noxpm-perl: testsuite libgd-gd2-perl: testsuite 5) a small number (~5) of packages need to be updated to be compatible with libjpeg7 raw interface (this is a one-line change). I will report bugs. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
