I'm planning on a new upload of tiff where all existing packages are unchanged and there's a new package called libtiff5-alt-dev. This package installed the tiff 4.x headers and libraries in a path that does not conflict with libtiff4-dev, and it installs the libtiff pkg-config files in the usual location. (libtiff4-dev does not provide pkg-config.) libtiff5-alt-dev conflicts with libtiff5-dev (since they both install pkg-config files) but not with libtiff4-dev. It is possible to have both libtiff5-alt-dev and libtiff4-dev installed at the same time, and this makes it possible to build a package that directly requires libtiff5 and indirectly depends on libtiff4-dev, such as vips. This will work easily for packages that use pkg-config to find tiff headers. A few packages do this and then fall back to standard system paths if pkg-config fails. Those packages work with either libtiff4-dev or libtiff5-dev. For packages that declare build dependencies on libtiff5-alt-dev and use pkg-config to find tiff, all they have to do after the transition is change the build dependency to libtiff-dev.
Can you think of any reason that this could possibly cause any harm? I don't think it will since it won't have any impact at all on packages that don't explicitly build depend on libtiff5-alt-dev. I'm going to go ahead and do the upload. If it's a bad idea for some reason that I am failing to see, it can always be rejected from NEW. If this is a bad idea for some reason, I would really like to find a solution so that vips and nip2 (among others) can have bigtiff support before wheezy. -- Jay Berkenbilt <q...@debian.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120519104227.1611971078.qww314159@soup
