I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before the F18 branch. However, I find that
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed
functions. End of story. I don't
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
all?
I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and
state that we don't care about LSB one little bit.
Richard.
--
devel mailing
On 8/1/12 5:47 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
A very quick search returns this:
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng.html
Thanks. The links I was given previously didn't lead me to that.
On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a
separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5
into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term
stopgap; I'm sure it violates all sorts of
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which
On 08/01/2012 09:45 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I can see assorted ways we could theoretically handle a desire to remove
libpng 1.2 from the distribution, but merely dropping the req from
redhat-lsb is the obviously wrong answer.
Right. I was obviously not suggesting it but perhaps
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 09.51 -0400, Adam Jackson ha scritto:
Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
all?
It is if you install redhat-lsb.
The only intrinsic reason to care about LSB support is binary
compatibility; Fedora broadly doesn't, but
On 08/01/2012 10:21 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
all?
I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and
state that we don't care about LSB
On 08/01/2012 04:48 PM, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
bcfg2-server
I dont think it's necessary for it to depend on redhat-lsb-desktop
anymore since that package has move to using unit files instead..
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a
separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5
into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term
14 matches
Mail list logo
