| 1 |
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 18:31:12 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/13/2011 01:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49:43 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 02/11/2011 06:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> 4) What have we learned from libpng 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade? I'd just like |
| 6 |
> >>> to be better informed. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> We have been discussing about removing libpng.pc, libpng.so and |
| 9 |
> >> unversioned headers from the libpng 1.5.x package allowing it to install |
| 10 |
> >> parallel with libpng 1.4.x. |
| 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 |
| 14 |
> > are however plenty of downsides. patching packages in the tree is a |
| 15 |
> > huge hassle, you add hassle to end users who d/l random packages and try |
| 16 |
> > to build things themselves, and you make Gentoo non-standard wrt every |
| 17 |
> > other distro out there. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > best we follow what everyone else is already doing, and what upstream |
| 20 |
> > packages will have to ultimately do anyways -- fix their code to work |
| 21 |
> > with libpng-1.5 when the API has been forcibly broken. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Or you can mask libpng-1.5 since most users aren't interested in having |
| 24 |
> the latest version of something they won't be using directly. Wait |
| 25 |
> until packages have been fixed upstream. Then 8 months or a year later, |
| 26 |
> unmask it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
that isnt how we work |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives