| 1 |
On 02/13/2011 01:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49:43 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/11/2011 06:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> 4) What have we learned from libpng 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade? I'd just like to |
| 5 |
>>> be better informed. |
| 6 |
>> [...] |
| 7 |
>> We have been discussing about removing libpng.pc, libpng.so and |
| 8 |
>> unversioned headers from the libpng 1.5.x package allowing it to install |
| 9 |
>> parallel with libpng 1.4.x. |
| 10 |
>> [...] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> i dont see any real advantages with SLOT-ed installs of libpng beyond ABI |
| 13 |
> (i.e. what we're doing today with libpng-1.2.x and libpng-1.4.x). there are |
| 14 |
> however plenty of downsides. patching packages in the tree is a huge hassle, |
| 15 |
> you add hassle to end users who d/l random packages and try to build things |
| 16 |
> themselves, and you make Gentoo non-standard wrt every other distro out there. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> best we follow what everyone else is already doing, and what upstream packages |
| 19 |
> will have to ultimately do anyways -- fix their code to work with libpng-1.5 |
| 20 |
> when the API has been forcibly broken. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Or you can mask libpng-1.5 since most users aren't interested in having |
| 23 |
the latest version of something they won't be using directly. Wait |
| 24 |
until packages have been fixed upstream. Then 8 months or a year later, |
| 25 |
unmask it. |
Archives