On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 00:46:42 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014, at 21:14, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > Version: 1:1.3.1-4 > > > > > > > > My understanding is that this bug can be now closed as > > > > the libjpeg-progs are not built from src:libjpeg-progs and > > > > libjpeg62* binary package names has been accepted now. > > > > > > Excellent news! When do you plan to upload a version libjpeg-turbo that > > > does not hijack libjpeg62 anymore ? > > > > JFTR I will list the consequences of any renaming that would happen: > > > > 1. libjpeg-turbo62 (as an example) would still contain shared library > > libjpeg.so.62, thus it needs to "Conflicts/Provides: libjpeg62", same > > applies for the libjpeg62-dev package vs libjpeg-turbo62-dev > > ("Conflicts/Provides: libjpeg62-dev) > > You are painting a bleaker picture than what is really required. > Since the package are fully compatible, the conflict is easily avoided by > moving some files a bit and then using the alternative system. > They're not fully compatible, as libjpeg-turbo's libjpeg.so.62 provides additional entry points.
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature