Skip to content

exiv2: update version 0.26.0 - 0.27.2 #1220

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

wwwutz
Copy link
Collaborator

@wwwutz wwwutz commented Aug 30, 2019

  • fix URL
  • remove sample binaries
  • disable deprecated ssh
  • use defaults

- fix URL
- remove sample binaries
- disable deprecated ssh
- use defaults
@donald
Copy link
Collaborator

donald commented Aug 31, 2019

This requires a rebuild of gimp.

buczek@theinternet:~/libcheck$ sudo ./libcheck.pl >x.1
buczek@theinternet:~/libcheck$ sudo bee update exiv2-0.27.2-0
[...]
buczek@theinternet:~/libcheck$ sudo ./libcheck.pl >x.2
buczek@theinternet:~/libcheck$ diff x.1 x.2|grep MISS
> MISS libexiv2.so.26                 /usr/bin/gcut
> MISS libexiv2.so.26                 /usr/bin/gegl
> MISS libexiv2.so.26                 /usr/bin/gimp-2.10
> MISS libexiv2.so.26                 /usr/bin/gimp-console-2.10
> MISS libexiv2.so.26                 /usr/bin/gimp-test-clipboard-2.0
> MISS libexiv2.so.26                 /usr/bin/gimptool-2.0
[...]
buczek@theinternet:~/libcheck$ gimp
gimp: error while loading shared libraries: libexiv2.so.26: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

@wwwutz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wwwutz commented Aug 31, 2019

Oh I should give libcheck.pl a try. sousage was less chatty.

anyways:

gimp wants exiv2
gimp wants gegl
gegl also wants exiv2
gegl also wants gexiv2
gexiv2 wants exiv2
but gexiv2 isn't compatible to new exiv2

image

@wwwutz wwwutz changed the title exiv2: update version 0.,26.0 - 0.27.2 exiv2: update version 0.26.0 - 0.27.2 Aug 31, 2019
@donald
Copy link
Collaborator

donald commented Sep 1, 2019

I understand, we can't update, before a new gexiv2 release comes out?
We could provide a compatibility package with libexiv2.so.26 in it, however.

@thomas
Copy link
Collaborator

thomas commented Sep 1, 2019

Kinders...

  • es ist wochenende, union hat gewonnen, es wird kälter ...

And why not just rebuild 0.26? Saving unneeded hassle?

@thomas
Copy link
Collaborator

thomas commented Sep 1, 2019

N.b we are talking about v 0.26 vs. 0.27. To my naive understanding of version numbers we are talking about devel crap that has achieved some 25% of the intended functionality - who cares!

1 similar comment
@thomas
Copy link
Collaborator

thomas commented Sep 1, 2019

N.b we are talking about v 0.26 vs. 0.27. To my naive understanding of version numbers we are talking about devel crap that has achieved some 25% of the intended functionality - who cares!

@thomas
Copy link
Collaborator

thomas commented Sep 1, 2019

sorry for the repeat of the prev comment, but my mobe firefox didn't close the entry field

@wwwutz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wwwutz commented Sep 2, 2019

as @thomas suggested in #1220 (comment) I rebuilt 0.26 in PR #1222 . libcheck.pl did not MISS 8-)

@wwwutz wwwutz closed this Sep 2, 2019
Sign in to join this conversation on GitHub.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants