Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:47:08PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: Closed-source programs and libraries are not a problem if the library we are talking about is copyrighted under the terms of the GPL (like libpng). My reading of /usr/share/doc/libpng2/copyright is that the *packaging* has been placed under the GPL, but that the library itself is distributed under a BSD license. Is this not the case? Ups, yes, you are right. Steve Langasek cu Adrian
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:06:33PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:36:24 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still remains. If we require a big recompile, when/ how are we going to bother to advise the maintainers of these packages? It has been stated that we are talking about 300+ packages :-( Mass NMU, setting Build-Depends to libpng-dev version that is for libpng3 sounds like a way to go. What about people's local binaries linked against libqt2 and libpng2? I maintain that fixing this in the applications is wrong; if at all possible, libqt2 should be more careful with the png namespace. It might be easier to set libpng3 to conflict with libpng2, so that until libpng2 is removed from the system libpng3 does not enter, which would make the problem more obvious. That would be utterly wrong. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:17:01AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:06:33PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:36:24 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still remains. If we require a big recompile, when/ how are we going to bother to advise the maintainers of these packages? It has been stated that we are talking about 300+ packages :-( Mass NMU, setting Build-Depends to libpng-dev version that is for libpng3 sounds like a way to go. What about people's local binaries linked against libqt2 and libpng2? I maintain that fixing this in the applications is wrong; if at all possible, libqt2 should be more careful with the png namespace. By the way, imlib1 is in the same boat as libqt2: I recompiled imlib using libpng3 and loads of GNOME binaries started failing to load icons. So this issue affects all of GNOME as well as KDE. -Steve -- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
I use debain. As a debian user I am quite distressed at how this bug is being treated. I have watched the bug reports on this issue and have created one (See 127215). From my perspective the problem seems to be the libpng3 changes the dependencies of qt2 and hense kde. It seems the fix is not to revert/fix libpng but to fix the qt dependencies however I get the impression that frustration is setting in. ie. did not create the bug so I should not fix it. From a user POV this is scary. With something as complex as debain or even just the kde tree this type of bug should be expected and _fixed_ quickly even if the person repairing the bug is doing damage control. Once the bug is _fixed_ then the developers can and should improve processes to make this sort of problem less apt to occur. I would not consider it a bug if qt2 had failed to upgrade until all dependent apps had recompiled packages available - my system would not have broken... This would have also put pressure on package owers to recompile. As it stands now there seems to be little incentive to recompile. Look at 127215 - its closed but nothing is fixed. Ed Tomlinson Mark Purcell wrote: On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 06:50:03PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:39:07 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The solution is rather simple, requiring recompilation to get the correct linkage to libpng3, but it would of been nice to see some dicussion on debian-devel before the upload of libpng3 to unstable 'broke' all our pacakges. Do you call that solution pretty simple? Well it is simple once you know about it. I have two complaints as a maintainer of a couple of libpng dependant packages. 1.Why hasn't there been any discussion on debian-devel to actually let maintainers know that there is this major backwards incompatibility issue, which is going to create all sorts of user problems. The only reports I have seen sofar are Bug#126808 and Bug#126904. Have a look in debian-kde 'where have my icons gone threads' to guage the amount of confusion this issue is causing. 2.What measures are in place to prevent such a monster change as caused by the uncontrolled introduction of libpng3?? This is a big issue, I'm stll suprised there has been zero discussion about this and the implications for developers of libpng dependant packages. We have around 300+ packages depending on libpng2, which amounts to more than 1000 rebuilds. And we don't have the incompatibility information in our dependency system, which means that it will fail to trickle into testing. The incompatibility as I see it from here is that any application which depends on libpng2, is only good with libpng2 = 1.0.12-2 and upon recompiling will be dependant on libpng3. libqt 2.3.1-18 has been recompiled and now depends on libpng3, but almost every other package needs to be recompiled as well :-( I understand that Philippe Troin, libpng maintainer, is currently on vacation. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the libpng issues could comment as this is only what I have been able to gather from the outside looking in. Mark
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote: and have created one (See 127215). From my perspective the problem seems to be the libpng3 changes the dependencies of qt2 and hense kde. It seems the fix is not to revert/fix libpng but to fix the qt dependencies however I get the impression that frustration is setting Yes. Actually, we have the same problem with every library that links with another library that is likely to be used by an app. The best example is libdb*, but there are others. libtiff, libpng, libsasl, libz... You either make sure EVERYthing is linked against the same library versions (and good luck with binary compatibility with other distributions for anything that has a shared library), or you must tell any libraries that link to other libraries to use --symbolic dynamic linking, or you must use versioned symbols. Maybe there is a fourth way, but I don't know of any. Implementing any of the fixes is bound to be painful. in. ie. did not create the bug so I should not fix it. From a user We actually need a Debian-wide (well, probably a LSB-wide) fix for the problem. The same kind of breakage is expected to hit us again and again until we do that. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: ... We actually need a Debian-wide (well, probably a LSB-wide) fix for the problem. The same kind of breakage is expected to hit us again and again until we do that. This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a shared library at the same time (in this case libpng2 and libpng3). As soon as there's only one version of such a library in the archive (IOW: libpng2 is removed from the archive) all the packages depending on this library that still link with the old version of the library become uninstallable which means that they need to be recompiled. This prevents us from all the obvious or silent breakages we do see otherwise. cu Adrian
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: ... We actually need a Debian-wide (well, probably a LSB-wide) fix for the problem. The same kind of breakage is expected to hit us again and again until we do that. This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a shared library at the same time (in this case libpng2 and libpng3). As Or if the user needs to have different versions of said library because of some closed-source (or not easily recompilable) library. However, it is a major pain in the backside for every library for which the upgrade path is not trivial. uninstallable which means that they need to be recompiled. This prevents us from all the obvious or silent breakages we do see otherwise. Just as far as Debian itself can. It does nothing for binary compatibility issues (which given our long release schedule for stable are NOT that simple to ignore). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:07:57PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: I use debain. As a debian user I am quite distressed at how this bug is being treated. I have watched the bug reports on this issue and have created one (See 127215). If a bug I filed had been treated that way, I would have reopened it immediately. Closing a bug out of hand just because you don't agree with where it has been filed is completely wrong. See #126829 for my arguments about this. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a shared library at the same time (in this case libpng2 and libpng3). As Or if the user needs to have different versions of said library because of some closed-source (or not easily recompilable) library. However, it is a ... Closed-source programs and libraries are not a problem if the library we are talking about is copyrighted under the terms of the GPL (like libpng). cu Adrian
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a shared library at the same time (in this case libpng2 and libpng3). As Or if the user needs to have different versions of said library because of some closed-source (or not easily recompilable) library. However, it is a ... Closed-source programs and libraries are not a problem if the library we are talking about is copyrighted under the terms of the GPL (like libpng). But binary-level compatibility is. This is a difficult problem to solve, true. But it is not one we can simply ignore. Not to mention it makes unstable a hell to use from time to time, which is certainly annoying :-) -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:47:08PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: This kind of problem does only occur if we ship several versions of a shared library at the same time (in this case libpng2 and libpng3). As Or if the user needs to have different versions of said library because of some closed-source (or not easily recompilable) library. However, it is a ... Closed-source programs and libraries are not a problem if the library we are talking about is copyrighted under the terms of the GPL (like libpng). My reading of /usr/share/doc/libpng2/copyright is that the *packaging* has been placed under the GPL, but that the library itself is distributed under a BSD license. Is this not the case? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpwXiSuETq98.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:41:59PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:07:57PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: I use debain. As a debian user I am quite distressed at how this bug is being treated. I have watched the bug reports on this issue and have created one (See 127215). If a bug I filed had been treated that way, I would have reopened it immediately. Closing a bug out of hand just because you don't agree with where it has been filed is completely wrong. See #126829 for my arguments about this. first off the package kde is a meta package that has no binaries so there is absolutely no problem with that package. The bug report was closed with a comment of file it against the proper packages please. What is so wrong about this? Absolutely nothing. I don't have the time to sit there and file bug reports on behalf of a user. Especially since the problem is known and is being dealt with. If I felt it was not being delt with I would spend the time to do this on my own however please tell me where I stated I would do the work for our users? Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please tell me where I stated I would do the work for our users? When you signed up as a Debian Developer. -- Sam Couter | Internet Engineer | http://www.topic.com.au/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]| tSA Consulting | OpenPGP key ID: DE89C75C, available on key servers OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C pgpXD1o5yaum6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:22:56AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote: Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please tell me where I stated I would do the work for our users? When you signed up as a Debian Developer. no. I did not. No where did I state I would submit bug reports for our users, provide all the necessary information on behalf of users, or anything of the sort. I am a Debian Developer, not a secretary. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no. I did not. No where did I state I would submit bug reports for our users, provide all the necessary information on behalf of users, or anything of the sort. I am a Debian Developer, not a secretary. It is the responsibility of every Debian maintainer to forward bugs upstream. That is, indeed, one of the most important tasks a Debian maintainer can perform. Having forwarded a bug, you should then leave it open until a fix is integrated into the package and uploaded.
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: first off the package kde is a meta package that has no binaries so there is absolutely no problem with that package. The bug report was closed with a comment of file it against the proper packages please. What is so wrong about this? Absolutely nothing. It is the wrong procedure. The correct procedure is to refile the bug against the correct package, which takes no more time than closing it.
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:37:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no. I did not. No where did I state I would submit bug reports for our users, provide all the necessary information on behalf of users, or anything of the sort. I am a Debian Developer, not a secretary. It is the responsibility of every Debian maintainer to forward bugs upstream. That is, indeed, one of the most important tasks a Debian maintainer can perform. Having forwarded a bug, you should then leave it open until a fix is integrated into the package and uploaded. your right..but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a bug report filed against a meta package where the user wanted me to submit bugs for each of the 40+ packages he listed. I am not a secretary. If the user wants all those bugs filed he can do it himself. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:40:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: first off the package kde is a meta package that has no binaries so there is absolutely no problem with that package. The bug report was closed with a comment of file it against the proper packages please. What is so wrong about this? Absolutely nothing. It is the wrong procedure. The correct procedure is to refile the bug against the correct package, which takes no more time than closing it. dude. get a fucking clue. What is the right fucking package when the user says please report this bug to the maintainers of the following 40+ packages? -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: I am not a secretary. If the user wants all those bugs filed he can do it himself. *NO*. If a user wants all those bugs filled, he should mail -devel and ask about it. Just like we urge developers to do before mass-filling bugs. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:19:02PM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:41:59PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: If a bug I filed had been treated that way, I would have reopened it immediately. Closing a bug out of hand just because you don't agree with where it has been filed is completely wrong. first off the package kde is a meta package that has no binaries so there is absolutely no problem with that package. The bug report was closed with a comment of file it against the proper packages please. What is so wrong about this? Absolutely nothing. 'bts reassign 127215 libqt2' ... since it was clearly libqt2 breaking backward compatibility. Anyway, I've run out of time for this evidently pointless discussion, unless you're willing to have the technical committee comment, in which case I will attempt to write up a summary. I don't have the time to sit there and file bug reports on behalf of a user. Especially since the problem is known and is being dealt with. It's being dealt with by breaking partial upgrades rather than reverting the thing that actually caused the breakage. From the bug report: | Much of kde stopped working when the libpng verson changed and qt2 was | updated to start using it. Anyway, I've said what I think of this strategy elsewhere. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:41:59PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:07:57PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: I use debain. As a debian user I am quite distressed at how this bug is being treated. I have watched the bug reports on this issue and have created one (See 127215). If a bug I filed had been treated that way, I would have reopened it immediately. Closing a bug out of hand just because you don't agree with where it has been filed is completely wrong. See #126829 for my arguments about this. first off the package kde is a meta package that has no binaries so there is absolutely no problem with that package. The bug report was closed with a comment of file it against the proper packages please. What is so wrong about this? Absolutely nothing. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] reassign foo thanks In other words, you loose. Go home, have a nice day. rant: I hate maintainers that do not use the features of the bug system, and insist on making users do more work.
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: your right..but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a bug report filed against a meta package where the user wanted me to submit bugs for each of the 40+ packages he listed. Anthony Towns was working on a clone command last weekend for the bts.
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:09:31PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: your right..but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a bug report filed against a meta package where the user wanted me to submit bugs for each of the 40+ packages he listed. Anthony Towns was working on a clone command last weekend for the bts. so your last email just falls flat as it wouldn't work. -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:09:31PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: your right..but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a bug report filed against a meta package where the user wanted me to submit bugs for each of the 40+ packages he listed. Anthony Towns was working on a clone command last weekend for the bts. so your last email just falls flat as it wouldn't work. What doesn't work about it? The user in question thought that 40+ bugs on 40+ packages needed to be filed. You closed the bug, saying the user should file those bugs. Instead, the bug should have been reassigned to the package that caused the incompatibility(qt2, for not changing it's soname). There should not be multiple bugs filed at all for this problem, as one thing is to blame. Clone(which doesn't exist) should not be used in this case.
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit: It is the wrong procedure. The correct procedure is to refile the bug against the correct package, which takes no more time than closing it. dude. get a fucking clue. What is the right fucking package when the user says please report this bug to the maintainers of the following 40+ packages? Try general or project or some of the meta-package. Which seems to be forwarded to debian-devel. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: That's the problem; there is just no real solution besides a big recompile. My question still remains. If we require a big recompile, when/ how are we going to bother to advise the maintainers of these packages? It has been stated that we are talking about 300+ packages :-( Or are we going to do as we are currently and wait until users report vague problems (these don't get straight forward bug reports - aka debian-kde confusion over the real problem). Personally I would like to see an automated bug report stating what the issues are and how the maintainer can fix it. That's what I got during the last update to python and it made my life as a maintainer straight forward. Rather than having to guess some non-backwards compatable change in an dependant package. Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8MuKtoCzanz0IthIRAuDHAJ9VZ1Fbn+X45XPjttkqLNNxJuMJeQCfdpzN N1ylOMPx3JAyrNZPimA/BVg= =M723 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:36:24 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still remains. If we require a big recompile, when/ how are we going to bother to advise the maintainers of these packages? It has been stated that we are talking about 300+ packages :-( Mass NMU, setting Build-Depends to libpng-dev version that is for libpng3 sounds like a way to go. Note that the recent python translation took more than a month to complete, I believe (well, I didn't). It might be easier to set libpng3 to conflict with libpng2, so that until libpng2 is removed from the system libpng3 does not enter, which would make the problem more obvious. Then again, do we really want to do this now? regards, junichi
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Mit, 02 Jan 2002, Mark Purcell wrote: That's the problem; there is just no real solution besides a big recompile. My question still remains. If we require a big recompile, when/ how are we going to bother to advise the maintainers of these packages? It has been stated that we are talking about 300+ packages :-( Maybe we could use: debian-devel-announce: Announcements for developers -- Noèl Köthe
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Noel Koethe wrote: On Mit, 02 Jan 2002, Mark Purcell wrote: That's the problem; there is just no real solution besides a big recompile. My question still remains. If we require a big recompile, when/ how are we going to bother to advise the maintainers of these packages? It has been stated that we are talking about 300+ packages :-( Maybe we could use: debian-devel-announce: Announcements for developers I guess we could do something like that. Problem is we still have lots of users who will be wondering where their graphics have gone and will be filing bug reports against all sorts of packages, as well as creating all sorts of bogus links to the wrong shared libraies to work around the problem. (Have a look in debian-kde) Then of course not every developer actually reads/ acts on devel-announce, yes I know hard to believe isn't it. I still think the only solution is to do the same as per python and automatically file bug reports/ conflicts with all pacakges which depend on libpng2. But I would be happy to be told otherwise. Mark
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
Problem is we still have lots of users who will be wondering where their graphics have gone and will be filing bug reports against all sorts of packages, as well as creating all sorts of bogus links to the wrong shared libraies to work around the problem. (Have a look in debian-kde) How about adding a slang popup notice in libpng3 package stating that the problem is known and being worked on, please don't file new bug reports and uploading it as a new upgrade? - Jarno -- Something's rotten in the state of Denmark. -- Shakespeare
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
This issue is fixed in kmerlin_0.3.1-5_i386, which has been uploaded. Btw, this appears to be a major backwards incompatibily problem between libpng2 - 3 which effects lots and lots of packages. The solution is rather simple, requiring recompilation to get the correct linkage to libpng3, but it would of been nice to see some dicussion on debian-devel before the upload of libpng3 to unstable 'broke' all our pacakges. Mark On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:30:31PM +0100, Jasper Spaans wrote: Package: kmerlin Version: 0.3.1-4 Severity: important When running the binary of kmerlin found in -unstable, I get the following errors, and no icons are displayed: libpng error: Incompatible libpng version in application and library libpng warning: Application was compiled with png.h from libpng-1.2.1 libpng warning: Application is running with png.c from libpng-1.0.12 Fetching the source and recompiling against the newest libpng-dev solves this problem; my list of installed png-libraries: ii libpng-dev 1.2.1-1PNG library - development ii libpng21.0.12-3 PNG library - runtime ii libpng31.2.1-1PNG library - runtime Furthermore, looking at the ldd-output for kmerlin: libpng.so.2 = /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 (0x40d9b000) for the precompiled binary; for the /recompiled/ binary: libpng.so.3 = /usr/lib/libpng.so.3 (0x40dc6000) So in theory, this should work correctly; maybe this dependency problem has something to do with kde's way of loading dynamic libs. -- Jasper Spaans http://jsp.ds9a.nl/contact/ Tel/Fax: +31-84-8749842 pgpwibhSaCbVP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:39:07 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The solution is rather simple, requiring recompilation to get the correct linkage to libpng3, but it would of been nice to see some dicussion on debian-devel before the upload of libpng3 to unstable 'broke' all our pacakges. Do you call that solution pretty simple? We have around 300+ packages depending on libpng2, which amounts to more than 1000 rebuilds. And we don't have the incompatibility information in our dependency system, which means that it will fail to trickle into testing. regards, junichi
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 06:50:03PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:39:07 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The solution is rather simple, requiring recompilation to get the correct linkage to libpng3, but it would of been nice to see some dicussion on debian-devel before the upload of libpng3 to unstable 'broke' all our pacakges. Do you call that solution pretty simple? Well it is simple once you know about it. I have two complaints as a maintainer of a couple of libpng dependant packages. 1. Why hasn't there been any discussion on debian-devel to actually let maintainers know that there is this major backwards incompatibility issue, which is going to create all sorts of user problems. The only reports I have seen sofar are Bug#126808 and Bug#126904. Have a look in debian-kde 'where have my icons gone threads' to guage the amount of confusion this issue is causing. 2. What measures are in place to prevent such a monster change as caused by the uncontrolled introduction of libpng3?? This is a big issue, I'm stll suprised there has been zero discussion about this and the implications for developers of libpng dependant packages. We have around 300+ packages depending on libpng2, which amounts to more than 1000 rebuilds. And we don't have the incompatibility information in our dependency system, which means that it will fail to trickle into testing. The incompatibility as I see it from here is that any application which depends on libpng2, is only good with libpng2 = 1.0.12-2 and upon recompiling will be dependant on libpng3. libqt 2.3.1-18 has been recompiled and now depends on libpng3, but almost every other package needs to be recompiled as well :-( I understand that Philippe Troin, libpng maintainer, is currently on vacation. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the libpng issues could comment as this is only what I have been able to gather from the outside looking in. Mark
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:25:24 +1100 Mark Purcell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The incompatibility as I see it from here is that any application which depends on libpng2, is only good with libpng2 = 1.0.12-2 and upon recompiling will be dependant on libpng3. libqt 2.3.1-18 has been recompiled and now depends on libpng3, but almost every other package needs to be recompiled as well :-( I suggest re-introducing libpng2, and libpng-dev. And also libpng3, and libpng3-dev. This will be clear that anything that wants to enter testing should use libpng2. libpng is used by many libraries, and also end applications, which is causing the problem. How did people solve the libdb issues? (or is it really solved?) regards, junichi
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 07:39:07PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote: Btw, this appears to be a major backwards incompatibily problem between libpng2 - 3 which effects lots and lots of packages. The solution is rather simple, requiring recompilation to get the correct linkage to libpng3, but it would of been nice to see some dicussion on debian-devel before the upload of libpng3 to unstable 'broke' all our pacakges. libpng3 can't be at fault directly, since it correctly has a different soname. For instance, knews (not a KDE package, despite the name) still depends on libpng2 on i386 and still works fine, and the libpng2 development libraries are still available so it can still be built from source. The problem appears to be that libqt2 now links to libpng3 rather than libpng2. When the dynamic linker loads a QT-dependent application still linked against libpng2, it overrides libqt2's png symbols with the png symbols defined in the application, so any png calls from inside qt will crash. Recompiling all applications to deal with this feels like the wrong answer; perhaps qt-x11 should be built with something like '-B symbolic' instead. `-Bsymbolic' When creating a shared library, bind references to global symbols to the definition within the shared library, if any. Normally, it is possible for a program linked against a shared library to override the definition within the shared library. I'm also a little confused by why so many KDE applications link to libpng directly. Picking kdeutils at random, the only instances of 'png_' or 'png.h' anywhere in the source tree are in admin/acinclude.m4.in, yet -lpng is on the link line and so all the binary packages built from kdeutils depend on libpng directly. Why? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
* Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020101 15:08]: I'm also a little confused by why so many KDE applications link to libpng directly. Picking kdeutils at random, the only instances of 'png_' or 'png.h' anywhere in the source tree are in admin/acinclude.m4.in, yet -lpng is on the link line and so all the binary packages built from kdeutils depend on libpng directly. Why? I can only guess, but I heard that are systems where an shared library can not depent on other shared libraries so the application has to link against all. Perhaps they want KDE to run on such systems, too? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 03:41:54PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020101 15:08]: I'm also a little confused by why so many KDE applications link to libpng directly. Picking kdeutils at random, the only instances of 'png_' or 'png.h' anywhere in the source tree are in admin/acinclude.m4.in, yet -lpng is on the link line and so all the binary packages built from kdeutils depend on libpng directly. Why? I can only guess, but I heard that are systems where an shared library can not depent on other shared libraries so the application has to link against all. Perhaps they want KDE to run on such systems, too? That would be a fair point, but I understand all Debian systems support inter-library dependencies. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
* Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020101 15:44]: binary packages built from kdeutils depend on libpng directly. Why? I can only guess, but I heard that are systems where an shared library can not depent on other shared libraries so the application has to link against all. Perhaps they want KDE to run on such systems, too? That would be a fair point, but I understand all Debian systems support inter-library dependencies. If some kde-app is using libpng directly then an enhanced script may brake these, if qt does no longer link against libpng, as any upstream source would most likely not link directly against it as the normal script does it. But I'm again guessing and do not know if there is a real chance for this or if the maintainer did simply not realize it. And perhaps there is some other reason for directly linking... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Bug#127252: -unstable compiled against the wrong libpng
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem appears to be that libqt2 now links to libpng3 rather than libpng2. When the dynamic linker loads a QT-dependent application still linked against libpng2, it overrides libqt2's png symbols with the png symbols defined in the application, so any png calls from inside qt will crash. Recompiling all applications to deal with this feels like the wrong answer; perhaps qt-x11 should be built with something like '-B symbolic' instead. That's the problem; there is just no real solution besides a big recompile. Whenever library A uses library B, and the library B soname bumps up, you now have the problem. Packages that use either basically must be recompiled, or they likely end up with two copies of library B (one under each soname), and the two probably will collide.
