Comment 20 for bug 23786

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:02:15 +1100 (EST)
From: Tim Connors <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#333479: gdk-imlib1: gdk-imblib1 should not explicitly conflict
 with libpng2

Thomas Bushnell BSG <email address hidden>
  Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:50:44 -0700:
> Ron <email address hidden> writes:
>
>> Package: gdk-imlib1
>> Version: 1.9.14-22
>> Severity: critical
>> Justification: breaks unrelated software
>>
>> Unless there is something big I am missing, gdk-imlib should
>> certainly not take it upon itself to force the removal of
>> libpng2 and all its dependencies...
>
> There is something big you are missing.
>
> libpng2 is being removed from Debian. libpng12-0 is a suitable
> replacement, source and binary compatible.

Doesn't seem to be binary compatible at all. Shoot me for using a closed
sourced app, but xv doesn't like me symlinking /usr/lib/libpng.so.2 to
/usr/lib/libpng12.so, but copes fine with libpng10.so

For now, I've just manually copied the old libpng10.so over, and let dpkg
get rid of libpng10, since I don't think I am running any apps that run
both gdk-imlib1 and libpng2 simultaneously.

Why, instead of conflicting, couldn't you simply let apps that depend on
both to segfault, as you say, and then let users submit bugs to the app in
question that needs to be rebuilt anyway, instead of throwing out the baby
with the bathwater?

You seem to justify that this saves apps from outside debian from
breaking, but it breaks xv.

--
TimC
"The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already." -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing
the praises of 8mm Exabytes