Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:40:56PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: >> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:09:45PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: >>>> so what's our position now? >>>> it seems upstream wouldn't like to (and probably can't solve without >>>> break something). >>> Have you talked to upstream about this? Please point us to >>> the upstream discussion on their mailing lists. >> without any response: >> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4A12C61E.9010701%40lfarkas.org&forum_name=libjpeg-devel-6x >> and we discuss many way that this not possible. > > There's a reason I keep going on about upstream libjpeg, not just > because I'm being difficult. It's because there's no way we, as mere > packagers, can fix this on our own. We can't even fix it if we have > the consent of SuSE, Debian and other packagers. > > libjpeg has a screwy, disfunctional upstream. There's not been a real > upstream release for 11 years. Now there is someone claiming to be > the official upstream for libjpeg who isn't ready to hold open > discussions with any of the interested groups. > > This can *only* be fixed by someone taking control, and making > a real upstream libjpeg which has an open, responsive governance. > > This is *not* a Fedora problem. > > Create a real upstream libjpeg (maybe you'll need to change the name). > Involve all the parties and packagers, make the right technical > decisions, release up to date, modern packages, and then, maybe, > mingw32-libjpeg can be a proper part of Fedora. in this case we've to remove mingw32-libjpeg from fedora since it's currently unusable and there is no usable upstream. which will result all of it's dependencies should have to be also removed (which is rather large number:-(). -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
