On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:19:37PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > 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 > >>thanks > >> > >>Whoops - 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.
Honestly, unless you provide evidence that PS files that include invalid jpeg-encoded data are still in use, I am not going to include two new packages to support non-standard compliant data in Debian, and in any case, I doubt the FTP master would let me. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
