Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi Jay, > > first, sorry for not handling this sooner.
Apology accepted. I know you guys have too much to do and not enough resources. > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:33:03 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > >> Rationale for not keeping libtiff4-dev: >> >> * tiff 3.x does not support pkg-config. We can't install libtiff4 >> dev files in a standard path since they will then conflict with >> libtiff-dev. Therefore, source packages that must have >> libtiff4-dev will have to make changes to their builds anyway to >> change include and library paths; simple binary NMU for this >> case is not possible. Forcing them to change the build >> dependency to libtiff4-alt-dev makes it easier to track which >> packages need attention and which packages have already been >> updated. Basically everyone with libtiff4-dev in their build >> dependency list will either have to replace it with libtiff-dev >> or replace it with libtiff4-alt-dev and update include and >> library paths. >> > So I think your plan sounds good, but I would really prefer to have as > few packages as possible build-depending on libtiff4-dev before we flip > the switch. Either that, or make the libtiff-dev built from the tiff > 4.x source package temporarily build a transitional libtiff4-dev package > depending on libtiff-dev and libtiff5, do the mass bug filing, and give > people a couple months to change their build-deps (or less, if there are > volunteers for an aggressive NMU campaign). I count about 70 such > source packages right now, and making them all FTBFS would be annoying. Sounds great to me. I think this plan will make for a smoother transition: 1. tiff3: stop providing libtiff-dev, drop libtiff4-dev, add libtiff4-alt-dev as in the original plan. 2. tiff: New plan: keep libtiff5-dev but have it provide libtiff-dev. Don't drop libtiff5-alt-dev, but instead make it a transitional package that depends on libtiff5-dev. Incorporate your suggestion of adding libtiff4-dev to depend on libtiff-dev and libtiff5. 3. Do mass bug filing as described before. Give people some time to adjust. 4. Eventually remove libtiff5-alt-dev and libtiff4-dev from the tiff package and drop the tiff3 package. Deal with anything that's FTBFS at that time. Only step 2 really differs from my original plan, and I agree that it is an improvement. By adding the libtiff4-dev package that you suggest and also making libtiff5-alt-dev a transitional package that depends on libtiff5-dev, very few if any should packages be FTBFS during the transition, right? Note that Ubuntu has had libtiff5-dev providing libtiff-dev for some time now, which bodes well for us. If you're good with this plan, give me the word, and I will do the upload. I can probably take care of the mass bug filing...I can script it locally unless you have a quick way to do it. -- 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/20131203160217.2981378896.qww314...@jberkenbilt-linux.appiancorp.com
