Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:54:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: >> Julien Cristau wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:08:41 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: >>> >>>> It is API compatible. As I said, I have rebuilt locally the 311 packages >>>> that build-depends on libjpeg62-dev against libjpeg8-dev, so there is no >>>> risk of API incompatibility. >>>> >>> Then they shouldn't have different names. > > They do not: libjpeg-dev was libjpeg62-dev and now it is libjpeg8-dev. > The problem is that some packages Depends on libjpeg62-dev instead of > libjpeg-dev as they should. > > libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
Can you point me to the section that points to that need? >> Indeed or put it differently: if you want to change the name of the >> package, it should provide libjpeg62-dev instead of conflicting with it. > > I do not disagree, and I could for example rename libjpeg62-dev to > libjpeg6b-dev and update the conflict. I still fail to see why you want a conflict. Either it should be coinstallable or there should only be one version of the package IMHO. > However I was told essentially not to do that in > <20090918230812.ga26...@artemis.corp> > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/09/msg00216.html> > Pierre Habouzit wanted packages build-depending on libjpeg-dev to > transition first. Unfortunately the wrong 'Depends: libjpeg62-dev' > need to be fixed first. I have reported bugs to that effect. Indeed, to avoid the current mess... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
