On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 07:53:50PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:43:45PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > What would be the best way to accomodate such a request? I can > > imagine introducing a new package of imlib linked with libpng3. But > > since it has to use the same SOVERSION as the current imlib1, it would > > have to conflict with imlib1. Each individual admin could then choose > > to use imlib+png2 or to use imlib+png3. However, each choice would > > have its own set of incompatible programs so this option doesn't > > appeal to me. > > If upstream is dormant (and I know that's an understatement), you could > also try to coordinate with other vendors who might still ship imlib and > agree to pick a new soname anyway. That seems a better choice than > creating a new package that conflicts with imlib1, IMHO. I was in fact having email discussions with both upstream and with a Red Hat maintainer last August & September. We had mutually agreed to pick a new soname. As Chris pointed out, Red Hat has gone ahead and released imlib1 with the new soname. I was waiting for the new upstream release for fear of violating a rule about changing the soname from upstream. You're suggesting we just go ahead. I'm fine with that. I expect that any new upstream release would have to take into account the soname of the currently-shipping Red Hat package anyway. If changing the soname for imlib1 bothers anyone, do let me know now. I want to emphasize that this is only for imlib1: I have no plan to change anything with gdk-imlib. Thanks, -Steve