On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:21:14PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:reopen 582522 thanksWhoops - this bug is still valid: ghostscript linking change affct the relevancy of this bug but do not solve it.I do not understand. You reported this bug that request the creation of new libjpeg/libjpeg-dev packages providing an incompatible API and ABI. If you do not intent to link against them, there is no point providing them.In other word: what do you expect me to do for closing this bug ?
I imagine either a) providing a "flavoured" library with this flag set which the ghostscript package can link against, or b) tagging this as wontfix and leave it open for eternity.
It is beneficial, even though being a wish, not a "true bug", that you not close it if choosing not to obey the wish, as other more severe bugs then cannot properly relate to this (in itself) less severe issue.
If you do not want to take time to fix this bug yourself, but are ok with maintaining a fix if others contributed a patch which (elegantly enough, according to your style of packaging) implemented multi-flavored build of the library, then I suggest you _not_ tag it as wonfix but instead as "helpneeded" (or whatever is the exact wording of that BTS tag).
I have experience in and can offer help implementing multi-flavored builds for CDBS style packaging, but not for classic long-form dh_* style packaging nor for modern short-form dh style.
Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
