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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
* 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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
