On 22.03.2012 11:21, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 22.03.2012 11:00, AnÃÂbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
So, the message is to move away from libpng 1.2 in Debian as soon as
we
can.
In that case, maybe someone could address some of the issues we
raised when the transition was first proposed? e.g. the
"requirement"
for changing the development page name and thus needing otherwise
unneccessary source uploads of a bunch of packages
As a concrete example, running "dak rm -b libpng12-dev" on ftp-master a
short while ago suggests that there are currently over two hundred
source packages in unstable with a build-dependency either on
"libpng12{,-0}-dev" with no alternative or with the 1.2 package as the
first in an alternative list. If the libpng 1.5 packages from
experimental were to transition to unstable right now, we'd be unable to
binNMU any of those packages; they would all require source uploads to
change the build-dependency. It may be that some of these can be
explained by multiple source versions where the newer source has
migrated to use libpng-dev, but I suspect those are a minority.
fwiw, there are also still six packages in unstable with libpng3-dev as
the only png-related build dependency. It may be that those packages
have other issues, fo course.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org