Return-Path: <awaresystems.be+caf_=filtered=awaresystems.be@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: filtered@awaresystems.be
Delivered-To: filtered@awaresystems.be
Received: from mx-h.one.com (mx-h.one.com [91.198.169.55])
	by mail9.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFEE401F34
	for <filtered@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:27:33 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by one.com
Received-SPF: pass (mx-h: domain of awaresystems.be+caf_=filtered=awaresystems.be@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.48 as permitted sender)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2
Received: from mail-pz0-f48.google.com (mail-pz0-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48])
	by mx-h.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968F8DEBC6
	for <filtered@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:27:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dadi14 with SMTP id i14so6879144dad.21
        for <filtered@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.211.225 with SMTP id nf1mr19679418pbc.47.1323721649503;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Forwarded-To: filtered@awaresystems.be
X-Forwarded-For: awaresystems.be@gmail.com filtered@awaresystems.be
Delivered-To: awaresystems.be@gmail.com
Received: by 10.142.241.19 with SMTP id o19cs87189wfh;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.73.7 with SMTP id h7mr37300268pbv.57.1323721647388;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: best guess record for domain of transitioning tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org does not designate 91.198.169.56 as permitted sender) client-ip=91.198.169.56;
Received: by 10.68.18.100 with POP3 id v4mf1113719pbd.9;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:27:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Gmail-Fetch-Info: info@awaresystems.be 1 pop.awaresystems.be 110 info@awaresystems.be
X-Original-To: info@awaresystems.be
Delivered-To: info@awaresystems.be
Received: from mx-i.one.com (mx-i.one.com [91.198.169.56])
	by mail9.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA768401F34
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:26:51 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2
Received: from lists.maptools.org (lists.maptools.org [65.39.174.144])
	by mx-i.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802CB10122CE
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:26:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by lists.maptools.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DCD1ED9CF;
	Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:25:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156])
	by lists.maptools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0469F1ED97F
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B931BDD005;
	Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jberkenbilt-linux.appiancorp.com (unknown [38.124.250.3])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 169851BDD004;
	Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:22:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
To: tiff@lists.maptools.org
Message-ID: <20111212152232.0212344153.qww314159@jberkenbilt-linux.appiancorp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:22:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Tiff] considering packaging 4.0 beta in debian "unstable"
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org

I have become aware of the fact that some GIS applications are dependent
on the bigtiff features in libtiff 4, and so some debian packages are
actually including their own copies of libtiff 4.0.0 beta in with their
source packages since the debian version of the tiff library is still
the latest 3.9.x release.  I have had 4.0.0 beta in debian's
"experimental" release for ages.  Now I'm considering packaging it in
debian's unstable release as well.  It would not be the default libtiff;
that would still be 3.9.x.  People would have to explicitly depend on it
to get 4.0, but it would make it available, and it would also mean that
it will eventually propagate to a stable debian release and also to
Ubuntu where it will potentially have a wider audience.  Basically I
would do this because the 4.0.0 beta releases seem stable enough for
other open source authors to include them in their packages, and from a
security perspective, it's much better to actually release a package a
beta version in unstable where it will get security fixes than it is to
have rogue copies of the source floating around invisibly inside other
packages.  Put differently, although there has not been an official
4.0.0 release, some people in the community have already decided that
they're going to start using it.

Before I took this action, I wanted to run it by the maintainers of the
tiff library.  I do release, of course, that there is very limited time
and resources on the tiff library right now, so this should definitely
not be construed as a complaint.  It's just a recognition of the reality
that tiff 4.0.0 is being "allowed to escape" even if it hasn't been
"released", and this is my attempt at decreasing the degree to which
this might pose a problem.  The good news is that I have extremely
limited time as well, so it may take me a while to actually package
4.0.0 beta 7 for debian!  But it's realistic that I could find the time
in the next couple of months.

Another option to packaging 4.0.0 beta 7 is to roll an informal release
out of the current CVS.  As security fixes have been announced on the
3.9.x branch, I have continued to locate them in CVS and to backport
them into 4.0.0 beta 7, so as far as I know, debian's 4.0.0 beta 7
contains all previously publicized security fixes.  I can't absolutely
guarantee that, but it has been my intention for that to be true.

Thoughts?  I do wish to consider the views of the tiff maintainers
before doing anything that will cause a big problem.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
