We have emul-linux-x86-* and icedtea6-bin in-house binary pkgs linking against libjpeg.so.7 Please create a new packages for them, linked against jpeg-8, and mask next to jpeg-8 in profiles/package.mask
this is going to suck every time the ABI changes, which seems like it's going to be frequent. we should start SLOT-ing older versions.
From my POV .so.7 wasn't around long, and there's no point in keeping it soon as icedtea6-bin (required by single NEEDED entry) and emul-linux-x86-* (required so that 32bit libjpeg.so and 64bit libjpeg.so versions match for wine) are updated... in short: i vote for us letting .so.7 die in peace
Created attachment 216571 [details] jpeg-7-r1.ebuild we keep old ABI compat ebuilds for important packages as there are plenty of external binaries that want them. since we need jpeg-6b:62 indefinitely, a jpeg-7-r1 is trivial to maintain too. ive already added the jpeg-6b-r9 ABI SLOTed ebuild, and here's the jpeg-7-r1 version of that.
Fixed with Mike's ebuild, and + 17 Jan 2010; Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> + icedtea6-bin-1.6.1.ebuild, icedtea6-bin-1.6.2.ebuild, + icedtea6-bin-1.6.2-r1.ebuild: + Restrict depend to =media-libs/jpeg-7* depend to get matching SONAME. + and jpeg-8 unmasking
What happened to creating new versions of the emul-linux-x86-* crowd? We're still at version 20091231.
new issue -> new bug
(In reply to comment #5) > What happened to creating new versions of the emul-linux-x86-* crowd? We're > still at version 20091231. > Bug 303255 is for this.
(In reply to comment #6) > new issue -> new bug The original problem description asked for new binary packages for the emul-linux-x86 libs and for icedtea6. The bug was marked as fixed, so I wasn't sure if I was just missing something.
