On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 00:46:42 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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.
>
They're not fully compatible, as libjpeg-turbo's libjpeg.so.62 provides
additional entry points.
Cheers,
Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature