Hi Jay, first, sorry for not handling this sooner. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:33:03 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Rationale for not keeping libtiff4-dev: > > * tiff 3.x does not support pkg-config. We can't install libtiff4 > dev files in a standard path since they will then conflict with > libtiff-dev. Therefore, source packages that must have > libtiff4-dev will have to make changes to their builds anyway to > change include and library paths; simple binary NMU for this > case is not possible. Forcing them to change the build > dependency to libtiff4-alt-dev makes it easier to track which > packages need attention and which packages have already been > updated. Basically everyone with libtiff4-dev in their build > dependency list will either have to replace it with libtiff-dev > or replace it with libtiff4-alt-dev and update include and > library paths. > So I think your plan sounds good, but I would really prefer to have as few packages as possible build-depending on libtiff4-dev before we flip the switch. Either that, or make the libtiff-dev built from the tiff 4.x source package temporarily build a transitional libtiff4-dev package depending on libtiff-dev and libtiff5, do the mass bug filing, and give people a couple months to change their build-deps (or less, if there are volunteers for an aggressive NMU campaign). I count about 70 such source packages right now, and making them all FTBFS would be annoying. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature