on 28/07/2009 04:15 Doug Barton said the following:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Mel Flynn wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that can lead to problems as well. I don't have the
>> precise
>> error anymore, but it is possible for programs to be linked to two
>> different
>> libjpeg's and fail the assertion that (p
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Mel Flynn wrote:
Unfortunately, that can lead to problems as well. I don't have the precise
error anymore, but it is possible for programs to be linked to two different
libjpeg's and fail the assertion that (paraphrased) "foo wants JPEG_70 API yet
JPEG_62 API available". This
On Monday 27 July 2009 14:52:04 Doug Barton wrote:
> Jason J. Hellenthal wrote:
> > If you pkg_delete -r that will remove every package that depends on jpeg.
> > This is not the right way of just getting rid of jpeg considering it
> > involves the complete almost full re-installation of the entire
Jason J. Hellenthal wrote:
> If you pkg_delete -r that will remove every package that depends on jpeg.
> This is not the right way of just getting rid of jpeg considering it involves
> the complete almost full re-installation of the entire system manually.
>
> A better route to upgrade would be:
If you pkg_delete -r that will remove every package that depends on jpeg. This
is not the right way of just getting rid of jpeg considering it involves the
complete almost full re-installation of the entire system manually.
A better route to upgrade would be: pkg_delete -f jpeg-\*
reinstall the
