On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a question about the netpbm package. There was an api change after > the 10.6xx versions were released and there have been bug fixes also. > > Based on the history file for the advanced repo shows, which the 10.57 > package was based on > > 13.02.20 BJH Release 10.61.02 > > MinGW build: various fixes. > > 12.12.31 BJH Release 10.61.01 > pamstereogram: change -guidesize default from 10 to 20 > (relevant since 10.61.00). > > pamstereogram: fix bug: doesn't reject negative guidesize. > Broken since 10.61.00. > > pamstereogram: fix bug: garbage in -verbose listing. Broken > since 10.61.00 > > The history file for the trunk version shows > > not yet BJH Release 10.62.00 > > pamstereogram: change -guidesize default from 10 to 20 > (relevant since 10.61). > > pamstereogram: fix bug: doesn't reject negative guidesize. > Broken since 10.61. > > pamstereogram: fix bug: garbage in -verbose listing. Broken > since 10.61 > > MinGW build: various fixes. > > 12.12.30 BJH Release 10.61.00 > > I hate to flag this as out date since so few packages from the repos depend > on it, so I did some testing. I obtained the patchset from 10.60.05 > contained in the fedora fc19 source rpm file and built the svn trunk repo > with the equivalent patches being used for the Arch 10.57 package and the > build went fine. I then tested the build of groff, gocr, latex2html, > dvd-slideshow, and vor against the netpbm-svn build I installed and those > builds went fine. I then tested the build of the trunk version with all but > one, netpbm-gcc4.patch, the patches contained in the fedora patchset and > the build went fine. One of the patches provides for not building the docs > which produces a package of 1.2M on my x86_64 machine. > > I'm using the svn version so I can build Prima from CPAN which wouldn't > build against 10.57, and don't seem to have any problems running the svn > version and will continue to do so. I also search the arch-dev public > mailing list for anything on netpbm updates and netpbm being a dep for > groff but nothing about the need for updating the package. Since there is > currently no maintainer for the netpbm package and based on this data what > would be the appropriate course of action in getting the Arch repo packages > updated to a later version of netpbm, or is it necessary? > Flagging it out-of-date is usually sufficient. Anyway, I've handled the last netpbm updates so I'll do this update too. Judging from your email, the rebuild should go fast (few packages, no problems). Eric > Myra > > -- > Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
