On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014, at 21:14, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Version: 1:1.3.1-4
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this bug can be now closed as
> > > the libjpeg-progs are not built from src:libjpeg-progs and
> > > libjpeg62* binary package names has been accepted now.
> >
> > Excellent news! When do you plan to upload a version libjpeg-turbo that
> > does not hijack libjpeg62 anymore ?
>
> JFTR I will list the consequences of any renaming that would happen:
>
> 1. libjpeg-turbo62 (as an example) would still contain shared library
> libjpeg.so.62, thus it needs to "Conflicts/Provides: libjpeg62", same
> applies for the libjpeg62-dev package vs libjpeg-turbo62-dev
> ("Conflicts/Provides: libjpeg62-dev)
You are painting a bleaker picture than what is really required.
Since the package are fully compatible, the conflict is easily avoided by
moving some files a bit and then using the alternative system.
When do you plan to operate the renaming ?
I need to reupload libjpeg62 with a bumped epoch before the freeze.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballo...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
