Hi,
2011/12/6 Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 16:34 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>> 2011/12/1 Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
>> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:16:41 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Libpng maintainers want to update libpng from 1.2 to 1.5.
>> >> libpng of ABI and API has been changed by change of 1.2 to 1.5, so it
>> >> needs a transition from libopng12 to libpng15.
>> >> We tested building of the package depending on libpng12.
>> >> FTBFS by this change is reported and is summarized below.
>> >>
>> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libpng15-transition;users=lib...@packages.debian.org
>> >> Almost all packages have not been corrected yet.
>
> That's quite a blocker; see below.
>
>> >> And it is necessary to change Build-depends of almost all packages
>> >> into libpng-dev from libpng12-dev.
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there a good reason why the new libpng-dev couldn't at least Provide
>> > libpng12-dev in the short term?
>>
>> libpng12-dev provides libpng-dev.
>> This is provided from before.
>
> Was this communicated to affected maintainers? Looking at unstable's
> Sources list, there appear to be around 100 packages already
> build-depending on libpng-dev, but there's no easy way of telling how
> long they've been doing so.
No, I do not yet notify you of this.
I work now.
>
>> > Would this allow some (most?) packages to
>> > be binNMUed?
>>
>> No, almost all packages have described libpng12-dev to Build-Depends.
>
> I'm not sure if something's getting lost in translation here, or if I
> wasn't clear enough in my question. If libpng12-dev was still Provided,
> is there any reason we couldn't then binNMU the 100-or-so packages
> marked as "ok" in your list?
The thing depending on libpng12-dev is still included in my OK list, too.
I replaced the package which still depended on libpng12-dev with
libpng-dev and confirmed the build.
And at first in the package which I still depend on libpng12-dev for
for the correction because it is necessary,
I understand it when this method is wrong.
>
>> First, we had better upload libpng15, after changing libpng12-dev into
>> libpng-dev.
>> Surely, I think that this method is easy for shift.
>
> We appear to have different definitions of "easy". Anything that
> involves changes to and uploads of over 300 packages is not what the
> release team classifies as easy.
>
I understand that package transition is difficult.
This means comparing with the case where there is a package depending
on libpng-dev and libpng12-dev.
> Furthermore, your list indicates that you're aware of nearly 130 build
> failures with the new library, and that less than a quarter of those
> have patches in the BTS; that's really too large a number to be starting
> a transition with. How many of the failures which don't have patches
> filed are directly attributable to the libpng changes?
Yes, almost all packages are caused by change of ABI/API of libpng.
I think that I will solve these problems as follows from now on.
First, I request the transition to libpng-dev from libpng12-dev from a
package maintainer.
Second, I correct FTBFS by libpng15.
A release team is again consulted with on shift to libpng15 after that.
How is it?
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
GPG ID: 40AD1FA6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
