On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:47:39PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > However, it's best to give maintainers of these packages *immediate*
> > notice of the coming transition, so they can prepare for it even before
> > libtiff4 is in the archive. . . .
> Should I send individual mail to each m
> > I'll have a libtiff4 package ready to upload this weekend, or maybe
> > tonight. I'm not a DD, but I'm on the NM queue and have a few people
> > who have sponsored packages. Worst case, someone can sponsor an NMU.
>
> I'm available for uploading if needed.
I have already prepared th
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:02:28PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> The bug in my mental picture was that I was imagining libtiff3g
> disappearing from people's installed systems when they installed
> libtiff4. This, of course, would not happen since the package names
> are different, unless libtiff
> > If we do this, forcing all these packages to recompile without
> > any changes would resolve the problem in sarge. The package
> > maintainers, at their option, could replace their dependencies
> > on libtiff3g to libtiff4 instead, or they could wait if they
> > don't care about the
Further clarification:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:48:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:53:02AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:53:26AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The upstream libtiff maintainers are going to s
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:53:02AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:53:26AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The upstream libtiff maintainers are going to skip some soname
> > > versions when they do their next release. This makes it possible for
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:53:26AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> [...]
> > The upstream libtiff maintainers are going to skip some soname
> > versions when they do their next release. This makes it possible for
> > distributions to resolve this on their own by releasing 3.6.1 as
>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:53:26AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
[...]
> The upstream libtiff maintainers are going to skip some soname
> versions when they do their next release. This makes it possible for
> distributions to resolve this on their own by releasing 3.6.1 as
> libtiff.so.4. FreeBSD
> The solution you propose has significant negative consequences for both
> partial upgrades from woody, and for third-party software linked against
> libtiff. I don't see any extenuating circumstances here that demand
> that we settle for a partial fix.
Thanks for the comments. I really appreci
Jay,
I'm sorry for not replying to this earlier.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:33:43AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Executive summary: there are compelling arguments in favor of closing
> all these bugs and letting libtiff-3.6.1 go into sarge. The only
> change required to this package is an upd
i.e., it works for me now).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
Subject: proposed resolution to release-critical libtiff3g bugs
Executive summary: there are compelling arguments in favor of closing
all these bugs and letting libtiff-3.6.1 go into sarge. The only
change requi
11 matches
Mail list logo
