Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Luk Claes
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:00:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>
 Bill Allombert wrote:
> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
 Can you point me to the section that points to that need?
>>> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG
>>>
>>> It's the same in LSB 4.0.
>> So libjpeg62 has to be remained, though libjpeg62-dev does not have to
>> stay and could be provided by libjpeg8-dev like I proposed from the start.
> 
> libjpeg62-dev have to stay for *building* LSB package. 

Right, though if you want to have that, you should have been clear from
the start.

> But anyway this whole discussion is a distraction. The only real issue is
> whether we transition all package build-depending on libjpeg*-dev at once, or
> whether we transition first the one that build-depend on libjpeg-dev.

Nope, the real issue is that you apparently want to do a messy
transition even when the Release Team wants to avoid that.

> In the first case, I rename the current libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and 
> change libjpeg8-dev to provide libjpeg62-dev and conflict with libjpeg6b-dev.
> 
> In the second case, we have to fix all packages that _Depends_ on 
> libjpeg62-dev to depend on libjpeg-dev instead.
> 
> Following the instructions given in 
> 
> I implemented the second solution, but I have no objection with
> implementing the first one if the release team change its mind.

Noone is changing their mind, though instead of a normal transition you
want to include a non coinstallable extra development package which is a
complete mess. Renaming even more packages is not going to make it any
less a mess.

The choice is either to make sure we have coinstallability or to drop
one development package IMHO.

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Bill Allombert
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:00:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 
> >> Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
> >> Can you point me to the section that points to that need?
> > 
> > http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG
> > 
> > It's the same in LSB 4.0.
> 
> So libjpeg62 has to be remained, though libjpeg62-dev does not have to
> stay and could be provided by libjpeg8-dev like I proposed from the start.

libjpeg62-dev have to stay for *building* LSB package. 

But anyway this whole discussion is a distraction. The only real issue is
whether we transition all package build-depending on libjpeg*-dev at once, or
whether we transition first the one that build-depend on libjpeg-dev.

In the first case, I rename the current libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and 
change libjpeg8-dev to provide libjpeg62-dev and conflict with libjpeg6b-dev.

In the second case, we have to fix all packages that _Depends_ on 
libjpeg62-dev to depend on libjpeg-dev instead.

Following the instructions given in 

I implemented the second solution, but I have no objection with
implementing the first one if the release team change its mind.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2010-02-11 20:21 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 19:44:58 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> 
>> > Bill Allombert wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
>> >
>> > Can you point me to the section that points to that need?
>> 
>> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG
>> 
>> It's the same in LSB 4.0.
>> 
> Doesn't that allow us to keep libjpeg62 but get rid of libjpeg62-dev?

If Debian has no interest of being a platform for building LSB packages,
surely.  I don't know if this is a concern or not.

Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Julien Cristau
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 19:44:58 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:

> On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> 
> > Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> 
> >> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
> >
> > Can you point me to the section that points to that need?
> 
> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG
> 
> It's the same in LSB 4.0.
> 
Doesn't that allow us to keep libjpeg62 but get rid of libjpeg62-dev?

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Bill Allombert
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:38:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> 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?


Library:libjpeg
SONAME:   libjpeg.so.62

So if you want to build LSB packages, you need libjpeg62-dev.

> >> 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.

The conflict is needed because they both install the file
/usr/include/jpeglib.h.

> > However I was told essentially not to do that in
> > <20090918230812.ga26...@artemis.corp>
> > 
> > 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...

I am not sure what you means, but I proposed to do thing differently:
to rename libjpeg62-dev to libjpeg6b-dev and to have libjpeg8-dev
provide libjpeg62-dev, but this was not accepted because
that would mean that packages build-depending on libjpeg-dev and
libjpeg62-dev had to transition at the same time. So libjpeg8-dev 
does not provide  libjpeg62-dev and that lead to the current situation which
require to fix packages that _Depends_ on libjpeg62-dev first.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Luk Claes
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> 
>> Bill Allombert wrote:
>>> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
>> Can you point me to the section that points to that need?
> 
> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG
> 
> It's the same in LSB 4.0.

So libjpeg62 has to be remained, though libjpeg62-dev does not have to
stay and could be provided by libjpeg8-dev like I proposed from the start.

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:

> Bill Allombert wrote:
>> 
>> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
>
> Can you point me to the section that points to that need?

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libjpeg62.html#LIBJPEG

It's the same in LSB 4.0.

Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Luk Claes
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>
> 
> 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



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Rene Engelhard
Hi,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:32:09AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> transition first. Unfortunately the wrong 'Depends: libjpeg62-dev'
> need to be fixed first. I have reported bugs to that effect.

Besides that you should have done befrore you did the change breaking
all them, obviously you missed some (like libvigraimpex-dev).

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
   `-   Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-11 Thread Bill Allombert
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.

> 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.

However I was told essentially not to do that in
<20090918230812.ga26...@artemis.corp>

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.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Luk Claes
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.

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.

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Julien Cristau
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.

Cheers,
Julien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:45:50PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>> jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib and sdop has been fixed already,
> >>> so I would like to start the transition by uploading a version of
> >>> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev.
> >> Accordingly, and unless directed otherwise, I will upload a version of
> >> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev on Sunday.
> > 
> > Done in version libjpeg8-dev 8-2.
> 
> What's the reason there is a conflict? Are they having common files or
> do you just want them to not be coinstallable?

Both libjpeg8-dev and libjpeg62-dev contains the same filenames, with
different content (e.g. /usr/lib/libjpeg.a)

> Is libjpeg8-dev really API incompatible or is it just nice to have
> another name?

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.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Luk Claes
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>> jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib and sdop has been fixed already,
>>> so I would like to start the transition by uploading a version of
>>> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev.
>> Accordingly, and unless directed otherwise, I will upload a version of
>> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev on Sunday.
> 
> Done in version libjpeg8-dev 8-2.

What's the reason there is a conflict? Are they having common files or
do you just want them to not be coinstallable?

Is libjpeg8-dev really API incompatible or is it just nice to have
another name?

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:12:08AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Are any of these packages actually buildable now?  For instance,
> 
> This is a good question. Please postpone the binNMU.

Also, it appears my list was truncated.

> I will report the full list of packages that are actually buildable,
> and the the list of -dev package that Depends on libjpeg62-dev.

The following package should be fine for a binNMU: I did a test-build with
pbuilder on i386 this morning.

dcraw 8.86-1
grace 5.1.22-2
hasciicam 1.0-1
htmldoc  1.8.27-4.1
inventor 2.1.5-10-14
libsfml  1.5+repack1-3
nxcomp   3.2.0-7-1.1
steghide 0.5.1-9
vtk  5.2.1-14
xjig 2.4-13

> > anything that depends on libtiff4?-dev is not, because libtiff4-dev
> > depends on libjpeg62-dev.  Neither is anything that depends on
> > libgtk2.0-dev, because of the dependency chain
> > libgtk2.0-dev -> libcairo2-dev -> libdirectfb-dev -> libjpeg62-dev.
> 
> Fortunately, while there are a large number of packages that Depends on
> libjpeg62-dev, only a small number are causing conflicts.

Here the list of packages that cause conflicts due to dependencies on
libjpeg62-dev:

libcupsimage2-dev
libdirectfb-dev
libdjvulibre-dev
libgd2-noxpm-dev
libgdal1-dev
libhdf5-serial-dev
libqt3-mt-dev
libsane-dev
libsdl-image1.2-dev
libtiff4-dev
libwmf-dev
libwraster3-dev

They should be updated to Depends and Build-Depends on libjpeg-dev instead.
Unfortunately that is likely to cause packages build-depending on libjpeg62-dev
to fail to build, so they will need to be fixed too.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2010-02-10, Adam D. Barratt  wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote, Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:39:49 +0100
>> Please trigger binNMU for the following packages that build-depends on
>> libjpeg-dev (and not libjpeg62-dev|libjpeg-dev) for rebuilding against
>> libjpeg8-dev 8-2:
>
>>From a quick look:
>
>> kwwidgets  1.0.0~cvs20090825-4
>
> Recent binNMU FTBFS on mips
>
>> poppler  0.12.2-2.1
>
> FTBFS on armel (gcc-4.4 va_list mangling change?)

looks like that. Expected fix for Qt: very soon. (adding a overload)

/Sune


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Adam D. Barratt

Bill Allombert wrote, Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:39:49 +0100

Please trigger binNMU for the following packages that build-depends on
libjpeg-dev (and not libjpeg62-dev|libjpeg-dev) for rebuilding against
libjpeg8-dev 8-2:



From a quick look:



kwwidgets  1.0.0~cvs20090825-4


Recent binNMU FTBFS on mips


poppler  0.12.2-2.1


FTBFS on armel (gcc-4.4 va_list mangling change?)


slicer  3.4.0~svn10438-4


-5 is in the archive, but so far FTBFS on alpha (".got subsegment exceeds 
64K"), mips ("No rule to make target `/usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so"), s390 
(ICE) and sparc (libmysqlclient.so again)



vtk  5.4.2-4


FTBFS on sparc ("expected nested-name-specifier")

Regards,

Adam 



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:53:17AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-02-09 23:39 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib and sdop has been fixed already,
> >> > so I would like to start the transition by uploading a version of
> >> > libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev.
> >> 
> >> Accordingly, and unless directed otherwise, I will upload a version of
> >> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev on Sunday.
> >
> > Done in version libjpeg8-dev 8-2.
> >
> > Please trigger binNMU for the following packages that build-depends on
> > libjpeg-dev (and not libjpeg62-dev|libjpeg-dev) for rebuilding against
> > libjpeg8-dev 8-2:
> >
> > imagemagick  7:6.5.8.3-1
> > inventor  2.1.5-10-14
> > kwwidgets  1.0.0~cvs20090825-4
> > libphash  0.8.1-1
> > libsfml  1.5+repack1-3
> > libterralib  3.3.1-8
> > mathgl  1.9-2
> > nxcomp  3.2.0-7-1.1
> > openscenegraph  2.8.2-2
> > ossim  1.7.21-1
> > pike7.6  7.6.112-dfsg-1
> > poppler  0.12.2-2.1
> > prima  1.28-1
> > shoes  0.r396-5
> > slicer  3.4.0~svn10438-4
> > steghide  0.5.1-9
> > tipptrainer  0.6.0-16
> > vino  2.28.1-2.1
> > vtk  5.4.2-4
> > vxl  1.13.0-2
> > xen-3  3.4.2-2
> > xjig  2.4-13
> > xnc  5.0.4-4
> 
> Are any of these packages actually buildable now?  For instance,

This is a good question. Please postpone the binNMU.
I will report the full list of packages that are actually buildable,
and the the list of -dev package that Depends on libjpeg62-dev.

> anything that depends on libtiff4?-dev is not, because libtiff4-dev
> depends on libjpeg62-dev.  Neither is anything that depends on
> libgtk2.0-dev, because of the dependency chain
> libgtk2.0-dev -> libcairo2-dev -> libdirectfb-dev -> libjpeg62-dev.

Fortunately, while there are a large number of packages that Depends on
libjpeg62-dev, only a small number are causing conflicts.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-10 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2010-02-09 23:39 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> > 
>> > jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib and sdop has been fixed already,
>> > so I would like to start the transition by uploading a version of
>> > libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev.
>> 
>> Accordingly, and unless directed otherwise, I will upload a version of
>> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev on Sunday.
>
> Done in version libjpeg8-dev 8-2.
>
> Please trigger binNMU for the following packages that build-depends on
> libjpeg-dev (and not libjpeg62-dev|libjpeg-dev) for rebuilding against
> libjpeg8-dev 8-2:
>
> imagemagick  7:6.5.8.3-1
> inventor  2.1.5-10-14
> kwwidgets  1.0.0~cvs20090825-4
> libphash  0.8.1-1
> libsfml  1.5+repack1-3
> libterralib  3.3.1-8
> mathgl  1.9-2
> nxcomp  3.2.0-7-1.1
> openscenegraph  2.8.2-2
> ossim  1.7.21-1
> pike7.6  7.6.112-dfsg-1
> poppler  0.12.2-2.1
> prima  1.28-1
> shoes  0.r396-5
> slicer  3.4.0~svn10438-4
> steghide  0.5.1-9
> tipptrainer  0.6.0-16
> vino  2.28.1-2.1
> vtk  5.4.2-4
> vxl  1.13.0-2
> xen-3  3.4.2-2
> xjig  2.4-13
> xnc  5.0.4-4

Are any of these packages actually buildable now?  For instance,
anything that depends on libtiff4?-dev is not, because libtiff4-dev
depends on libjpeg62-dev.  Neither is anything that depends on
libgtk2.0-dev, because of the dependency chain
libgtk2.0-dev -> libcairo2-dev -> libdirectfb-dev -> libjpeg62-dev.

Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



BinNMU for libjpeg8 transition

2010-02-09 Thread Bill Allombert
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 
> > jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib and sdop has been fixed already,
> > so I would like to start the transition by uploading a version of
> > libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev.
> 
> Accordingly, and unless directed otherwise, I will upload a version of
> libjpeg8-dev that provides libjpeg-dev on Sunday.

Done in version libjpeg8-dev 8-2.

Please trigger binNMU for the following packages that build-depends on
libjpeg-dev (and not libjpeg62-dev|libjpeg-dev) for rebuilding against
libjpeg8-dev 8-2:

imagemagick  7:6.5.8.3-1
inventor  2.1.5-10-14
kwwidgets  1.0.0~cvs20090825-4
libphash  0.8.1-1
libsfml  1.5+repack1-3
libterralib  3.3.1-8
mathgl  1.9-2
nxcomp  3.2.0-7-1.1
openscenegraph  2.8.2-2
ossim  1.7.21-1
pike7.6  7.6.112-dfsg-1
poppler  0.12.2-2.1
prima  1.28-1
shoes  0.r396-5
slicer  3.4.0~svn10438-4
steghide  0.5.1-9
tipptrainer  0.6.0-16
vino  2.28.1-2.1
vtk  5.4.2-4
vxl  1.13.0-2
xen-3  3.4.2-2
xjig  2.4-13
xnc  5.0.4-4

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature