Am 22.09.2012 22:33, schrieb Cristian Rodríguez:

El 22/09/12 08:25, Cristian Morales Vega escribió:

...

In https://build.opensuse.org/package/rdiff?linkrev=base&package=libjpeg-turbo&project=graphics&rev=15 support for libjpeg v6b was dropped without any comment in the changelog. Was that intended?

Notice (if you care at all, otherwise ignore this) that LSB still defines libjpeg.so.62 (http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Deskt...)

Well. that's something for the LSB to fix, or for people that needs an LSB target.

Come on. Even people who don't care for LSB sometimes require libjpeg.so.62, making Factory unusable for them is not nice. Why can't we build two versions of libjpeg-turbo, one with enabled "--with-jpeg8" and one without?

We need working stuff instead of paper standards.

Exactly. A system without libjpeg.so.62 often is not considered "working stuff". -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

El 28/09/12 14:25, Brian K. White escribió:

Often I have contemplated compiling a list of "Sh** Christian says."

I guess I can voice my disagrement with an "standard" that is doomed to fail,have improved nothing and attempting to comply with it distracts developer's focus on important things can I ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Am 28.09.2012 19:33, schrieb Claudio Freire:

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Stefan Seyfried

...

Exactly. A system without libjpeg.so.62 often is not considered "working stuff".

Well, I have an app that hasn't seen any updates to its usage of libjpeg for a while, and it transitioned to .8 quite seamlessly (uses 62 on 11.4, 8 on Factory). (I had to check, cuz I didn't do anything explicitly).

But it was recompiled on Factory, wasn't it? This is about applications that you cannot recompile.

If they're *that* compatible... why care?

They are compatible on source level, but not binary compatible. -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Am 29.09.2012 20:18, schrieb Claudio Freire:

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

Am 28.09.2012 19:33, schrieb Claudio Freire:

...

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Stefan Seyfried

...

...

Exactly. A system without libjpeg.so.62 often is not considered "working stuff".

...

This is about applications that you cannot recompile.

Is OBS suddenly supporting binary blobs?

You know that there are other sources of software than the OBS? There's even such a thing as proprietary software.

...

...

If they're *that* compatible... why care?

They are compatible on source level, but not binary compatible.

So? OBS rebuilds everything in the distribution from source.

There's more to "working stuff" than what's available from OBS. -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 29 September 2012 20:49, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Saturday 2012-09-29 20:20, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

Exactly. A system without libjpeg.so.62 often is not considered "working stuff".

...

...

This is about applications that you cannot recompile.

Is OBS suddenly supporting binary blobs?

You know that there are other sources of software than the OBS? There's even such a thing as proprietary software.

You know that distros generally did not, and do not, bother with keeping old stuff around?

Is this case we are not talking about old stuff. libjpeg.so.6 is the default soname in the latest version of libjpeg-turbo. As already said LSB defines libjpeg.so.6 and Fedora doesn't provide a libjpeg.so.8. For a third party developer it only makes sense to distribute binaries linking against libjpeg.so.6. Since I didn't receive an explanation about why the change was done I will create a submit request to provide both libjpeg.so.6 and libjpeg.so.8 versions of libjpeg-turbo. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Am 29.09.2012 21:49, schrieb Jan Engelhardt:

On Saturday 2012-09-29 20:20, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

Exactly. A system without libjpeg.so.62 often is not considered "working stuff".

...

...

This is about applications that you cannot recompile.

Is OBS suddenly supporting binary blobs?

You know that there are other sources of software than the OBS? There's even such a thing as proprietary software.

You know that distros generally did not, and do not, bother with keeping old stuff around?

Yeah, like gcc33 and libstdc++33 which is also in Factory, libpng12, libpng14,... It's not even like we'd need to keep extra sources around. libjpeg-turbo can build libjpeg62 and libjpeg8, it is just a configure switch. -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:53:12PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Sunday 2012-09-30 00:14, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

...

...

...

Exactly. A system without libjpeg.so.62 often is not considered "working stuff".

You know that there are other sources of software than the OBS? There's even such a thing as proprietary software.

You know that distros generally did not, and do not, bother with keeping old stuff around?

Yeah, like gcc33 and libstdc++33 which is also in Factory, libpng12, libpng14,...

You are citing a specific class of packages. libnl-1_1 also falls into that pool, for example.

But the reason we still have libpng12, libnl-1_1, etc. is not because some random proprietary program could possibly be linking against it, but because some software, in *source form*, still depends on it for compilation.

Yes, you can turn on libjpeg.so.62 generation in jpeg-turbo; ncurses does something similar (producing both libncurses.so.5 and libncurses.so.6), but then again, it does not do that for for proprietary programs _either_. Like with libnl-1_1->libnl3, there was a bigger API change in ncurses5->ncurses6.

And it makes a difference if a closed source software needs a library compared to an open source software? Try to see it from the users side. The only goal they have is to get something working. If we're aware of a software requireing a particular library version and it's easy to offer and maintain such a build we should do it. Anything else is going into the dogmatic direction. Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team + SUSE Labs SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Lars Müller wrote:

...

Yes, you can turn on libjpeg.so.62 generation in jpeg-turbo; ncurses does something similar (producing both libncurses.so.5 and libncurses.so.6), but then again, it does not do that for for proprietary programs _either_. Like with libnl-1_1->libnl3, there was a bigger API change in ncurses5->ncurses6.

And it makes a difference if a closed source software needs a library compared to an open source software?

Try to see it from the users side. The only goal they have is to get something working.

If we're aware of a software requireing a particular library version and it's easy to offer and maintain such a build we should do it.

Anything else is going into the dogmatic direction.

Cheers,

Well, that's why I checked upstream's changelog, and I don't see any ABI-breaking changes mentioned. There could still be some, so someone with access to such third-party software depending on libjpeg should try and report the results. There's a high probability that it could still be supported with relative ease. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Sunday 2012-09-30 17:11, Claudio Freire wrote:

...

[libjpeg] Well, that's why I checked upstream's changelog, and I don't see any ABI-breaking changes mentioned. There could still be some,

It's pretty clear-cut. For example, jpeg8 ABI has h and v scaled sizes, while jpeg6 ABI only has one member:

Ok, so the OBS package would have to be linked and a new specfile generated that sets LIB_JPEG_VERSION=62. Which means maintaining two specfiles. I guess it's up to the maintainers to say if it's worth it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

...

...

If they're *that* compatible... why care?

They are compatible on source level, but not binary compatible.

So? OBS rebuilds everything in the distribution from source.

There's more to "working stuff" than what's available from OBS.

Ok, but... are they actually incompatible? Because I cannot se anything in the changelog that would suggest that, that package was providing 62 before the update, and not anymore after the update. Who's to say it was really needed and not an oversight? Maybe check it out? (grab the binary, name it 62 and find out if any of those programs you mention break). In fact, upstream's changelog[0] seems to suggest they worked to maintain compatibility for libjpeg7 (not sure 62, they didn't mention breaking it anyway) [0] http://libjpeg-turbo.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/libjpeg-turbo/tags/1.2.0/ChangeLog.txt?revision=862&view=markup -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org