Return-Path: <awaresystems.be+caf_=filtered=awaresystems.be@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: filtered@awaresystems.be
Delivered-To: filtered@awaresystems.be
Received: from mx-q.one.com (mx-q.one.com [91.198.169.248])
	by mail9.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26538400A20
	for <filtered@awaresystems.be>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:00:49 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by one.com
Received-SPF: pass (mx-q: domain of awaresystems.be+caf_=filtered=awaresystems.be@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.48 as permitted sender)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2
Received: from mail-pw0-f48.google.com (mail-pw0-f48.google.com [209.85.160.48])
	by mx-q.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D8987A742
	for <filtered@awaresystems.be>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:00:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pbff6 with SMTP id f6so1892382pbf.21
        for <filtered@awaresystems.be>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:00:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.240.164 with SMTP id wb4mr1543142pbc.57.1327453247244;
        Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:00:47 -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 10.142.51.2 with SMTP id y2cs53360wfy;
        Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.75.170 with SMTP id d10mr35052897pbw.117.1327453243809;
        Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: best guess record for domain of transitioning tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org does not designate 91.198.169.250 as permitted sender) client-ip=91.198.169.250;
Received: by 10.130.148.40 with POP3 id v40mf432663dad.11;
        Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:00:43 -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-s.one.com (mx-s.one.com [91.198.169.250])
	by mail9.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F378F400A20
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:09:34 +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-s.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895EF176D84E
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:09:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by lists.maptools.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68311EDA99;
	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:08:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153])
	by lists.maptools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 902AB1EDA96
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:24:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5089ED40844;
	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:24:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.160.59.130] (ip68-98-168-93.dc.dc.cox.net [68.98.168.93])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C21A1D40838;
	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F1F3D9E.5010101@ql.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:24:14 -0500
From: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us>
References: <4F1C3F22.1050401@ql.org>
	<alpine.GSO.2.01.1201221350510.15666@freddy.simplesystems.org>
	<alpine.GSO.2.01.1201221435500.15666@freddy.simplesystems.org>
	<4F1CBC56.2010909@ql.org>
	<alpine.GSO.2.01.1201230909080.15666@freddy.simplesystems.org>
	<4F1D824B.5060401@ql.org> <961.1327335982@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<alpine.GSO.2.01.1201231142300.29130@freddy.simplesystems.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.01.1201231142300.29130@freddy.simplesystems.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
Cc: Tiff List <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] update on tiff 4.x in debian
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



On 01/23/2012 12:50 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org> writes:
>>> I will get to this as soon as I can, but I will probably want to get
>>> someone from the debian release team to look at it.  Maybe Tom Lane can
>>> look at it too -- he probably has more experience with this than I do.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't know much of anything about versioned symbols.  My
>> reaction TBH is that it's a big mistake to be changing 3.9.x's ABI
>> at this late date, and that if this ships it will be a blocker to
>> ever again updating libtiff 3.9 in existing RHEL branches.
>
> The 3.9.x ABI would not change by default.  If a distribution chooses
> to enable versioned symbols then it also needs to take responsibility
> to assure that all software is built consistently and that there is no
> way to introduce binaries which depend on the former ABI.  This is
> most easily performed at beginning of a major baseline cycle, which
> typically occurs only every few years.  Of course, the software could
> simply be updated to work with libtiff 4.0 instead.
>
> Debian did previously jump through all these hoops in order to add
> versioned symbols to old IJG JPEG 6b so that it could introduce IJG
> JPEG 7 and IJG JPEG 8.
>
> Bob

We have a plan for debian.  I will be preparing an upload of 3.9.5 with
versioned symbols (I'll grab from CVS) to "experimental" as well as
4.0.0 with versioned uploads so the release team can give them a
shakedown, but they looked at your CVS and said the changes looked
right.  If that goes okay, then I would suggest 3.9.6 and 4.0.1
releases.  Then, for debian, we will immediately upload 3.9.6 with
versioned symbols and jump through the hoops required, though the
release team says old binaries should continue to work.  I haven't
personally tested that.  At some point after that, the "tiff" package in
debian will become 4.0, and the tiff 3 support will move into a separate
"tiff3" package.  This may be able to happen fairly soon after we get
3.9.6 with versioned symbols transitioned, or the release team may
decide that it has to wait until after Wheezy is released.  While no one
has brought it up, Ubuntu is heading toward an LTS release this coming
April, and it might be a good idea for debian to wait on making the
default tiff based on 4.0 until after that freezes so we don't leak
problems into there.  But at this point, there is a clear path forward
to getting the default tiff in debian based on 4.0.  It will take
several months to happen, but it will happen.

I won't bother this list with the blow by blow, but I will report back
once the release team says that the new packages with versioned symbols
are acceptable for them to bless the plan of eventually transitioning to
4.0.  At that time, hopefully you can push out 3.9.6 and 4.0.1.

Sound okay?

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