Re: Oddities about jpeg_6a, advice requested
Oscar Levi <elf@buici.com> writes:
> It is my understanding that the 6b libraries are a replacement for the
> 6a libraries and that there is no reason to keep the oold ones
> around. The presence of the two versions errs a little too far to the
> left.
You keep the old ones around to run programs that were compiled
against "libjpeg.so.6a". The code contained in the tar file named
"libjpeg6b" is not binary compatible with the old version of the
library. (The library generated by the source code labelled
"libjpeg6b" should have the soname "libjpeg.so.62".)
The 6a packages are only needed for backwards compatibility, if you're
working on an architecture that never had "libjpeg.so.6a", you can
ignore them.
> What is more bothersome, though, is that the 6a source is *not* the
> original source. It doesn't even compile. 6b is OK.
> Anyway, Joel Klecker <espy@debian.org> claims to have fixed this bug
> some time ago. It is in the changelog as fixed. Is this true?
> It seems to me there should only be one libjpeg package and it should
> be called libjpeg or libjpeg6. Do we care?
Are you talking about source packages or binary packages?
We need more than one version of libjpeg, "libjpegg6a" is needed to
run old programs which were compiled against "libjpeg.so.6a" and
"libjpeg62" is need to run programs compiled against the current
"libjpeg.so.62".
Because of the GPL, we should have source packages for each of these
binary packages.
Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu
Reply to: