[gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

So.. basically:

1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif
2) They don't block each other
3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header 
file (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)

So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on 
this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...

-- 
Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org>
------------------------
Sound   | Video   | Security
Mozilla | Haskell | Lang-misc
ChrisWhite @ irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:41 am, Chris White wrote:
> So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
> this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...

going by the description, it seems like libungif is pretty much pointless 
now ?  libgd has added back in gif support now that the LZW patent has 
expired everywhere ...

perhaps we can just clean out libungif and have everything use giflib now
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Michael Marineau]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:41 am, Chris White wrote:
> 
>>So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
>>this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
> 
> 
> going by the description, it seems like libungif is pretty much pointless 
> now ?  libgd has added back in gif support now that the LZW patent has 
> expired everywhere ...
> 
> perhaps we can just clean out libungif and have everything use giflib now
> -mike

I'd second killing libungif if we can get away with it.  More than once I've
had to unmerge libungif and reemerge giflib because after libungif stomps on
things builds really like to break :-(

However, somethings like qt, actually depend on BOTH packages.  Does libungif
actually provide something that giflib does not? Why is both needed?
-- 
Michael Marineau
marineam@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux Developer
Oregon State University

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

Michael Marineau wrote:

>However, somethings like qt, actually depend on BOTH packages.  Does libungif
>actually provide something that giflib does not? Why is both needed?
>  
>
I don't know why qt requires both in the first place.  qt-3.3.3 (stable 
on all arches) has a _builtin_ gif reader, it just tells you about the 
LWZ patent (which.. doesn't matter because it's expired..).  If you look 
in the source tree, under src/kernel/qasyncimageio.cpp, you'll see the 
code for the builtin image reader. Therefore, it really doesn't need any 
at all that I can tell, but I'll leave the qt people to decide whether 
or not they want to keep giflib in there, but as it stands, libungif go 
bye bye.

-- 
Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org>
------------------------
Sound   | Video   | PPC
ChrisWhite @ irc.freenode.net
cpw @ irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Gregorio Guidi]

On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:36, Chris White wrote:
> Michael Marineau wrote:
> >However, somethings like qt, actually depend on BOTH packages.  Does
> > libungif actually provide something that giflib does not? Why is both
> > needed?
>
> I don't know why qt requires both in the first place.  qt-3.3.3 (stable
> on all arches) has a _builtin_ gif reader,

Exact. Actually, there's qt-3.3.4-r2, also stable on all arches, where those 
wrong dependencies were removed, so there's really no problem here.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1157 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

>On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:41 am, Chris White wrote:
>  
>
>>So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
>>this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
>>    
>>
>
>going by the description, it seems like libungif is pretty much pointless 
>now ?  libgd has added back in gif support now that the LZW patent has 
>expired everywhere ...
>
>perhaps we can just clean out libungif and have everything use giflib now
>-mike
>--
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
>  
>
That's what I'm going to do then.

libungif is now being removed from the true to honor the better giflib 
with expired LWZ patent.  On this friday, I will be doing the dep 
adjustments in the tree.  I will also be creating a bug to track issues 
with giflib not working with certain programs.  I highly doubt this 
however, and anticipate a rather clean movement (knock on wood :|).  
Rember: this Friday, you have been warned.  Speak now or forever hold 
your peace :P.

-- 
Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org>
------------------------
Sound   | Video   | PPC
ChrisWhite @ irc.freenode.net
cpw @ irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Paul Waring]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:21:29 +0900, Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org> wrote:
> libungif is now being removed from the true to honor the better giflib
> with expired LWZ patent.  On this friday, I will be doing the dep
> adjustments in the tree.  I will also be creating a bug to track issues
> with giflib not working with certain programs.  I highly doubt this
> however, and anticipate a rather clean movement (knock on wood :|).
> Rember: this Friday, you have been warned.  Speak now or forever hold
> your peace :P.

How will this effect non-dev users who already have libungif
installed? Will it stay or be automatically unmerged? What about
existing programs that use libungif? I'm only asking because I'm
fairly sure I have quite a few things that depend on one or both
libraries and I don't want them all to break come Friday.

Paul

-- 
Rogue Tory
www.roguetory.org.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

maillog: 17/03/2005-09:27:14(+0000): Paul Waring types
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:21:29 +0900, Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > libungif is now being removed from the true to honor the better giflib
> > with expired LWZ patent.  On this friday, I will be doing the dep
> > adjustments in the tree.  I will also be creating a bug to track issues
> > with giflib not working with certain programs.  I highly doubt this
> > however, and anticipate a rather clean movement (knock on wood :|).
> > Rember: this Friday, you have been warned.  Speak now or forever hold
> > your peace :P.
> 
> How will this effect non-dev users who already have libungif
> installed? Will it stay or be automatically unmerged? What about
> existing programs that use libungif? I'm only asking because I'm
> fairly sure I have quite a few things that depend on one or both
> libraries and I don't want them all to break come Friday.

I guess that libungif will disappear from your system on a depclean.
I believe that you will see no errors, as long as:

- You have upgraded all your packages that depend on one or the other,
  because the new releases will depend only on giflib. In other words,
  if libungif is not required as a dependency by anything else.
- You don't have libungif in your "world". In this case "emerge" would
  complain that "there are no ebuilds to satisfy ... " when you update
  your system.

-- 
\/   Georgi Georgiev   \/ Deliberation, n.: The act of examining       \/
/\    chutz@gg3.net    /\ one's bread to determine which side it is    /\
\/  +81(90)6266-1163   \/ buttered on. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The         \/
/\ ------------------- /\ Devil's Dictionary"                          /\

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Damian Kolkowski]

* Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> [2005-03-17 11:58]:
> - You have upgraded all your packages that depend on one or the other,
>   because the new releases will depend only on giflib. In other words,
>   if libungif is not required as a dependency by anything else.

I have only two:

.~. # equery depends libungif
[ Searching for packages depending on libungif... ]
media-gfx/fbi-1.31
media-libs/imlib2-1.2.0-r2
.~. #

> - You don't have libungif in your "world". In this case "emerge" would
>   complain that "there are no ebuilds to satisfy ... " when you update
>   your system.

So I will have to unmerge "=media-libs/libungif-4.1.3" and re-emerge
"=media-libs/giflib-4.1.3", yes?


I think it will be good to re-emerge all packages that have USE="gif" flag, so
in my case it will be:

.~. # equery hasuse gif
[ Searching for USE flag gif in all categories among: ]
 * installed packages
 [I--] [  ] media-gfx/fbi-1.31 (0)
 [I--] [  ] media-libs/libungif-4.1.3 (0)
 [I--] [  ] media-libs/imlib2-1.2.0-r2 (0)
 [I--] [  ] media-libs/giflib-4.1.3 (0)
 [I--] [  ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre5-r5 (0)
 [I--] [M ] x11-libs/qt-3.3.4-r3 (3)
.~. #


P.S. But why you would unmerge libungif? `equery f ` shows different files.

-- 
### Damian Kołkowski (dEiMoS) ## http://kolkowski.no-ip.org/ ###
# echo teb.cv-ba.vxfjbxybx.anvznq | rot13 | rev | sed s/\\./@/ #

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 17 March 2005 04:27 am, Paul Waring wrote:
> How will this effect non-dev users who already have libungif
> installed? 

there is no difference between 'dev users' and 'non-dev users'

you either use Gentoo or you dont

> Will it stay or be automatically unmerged?

portage never automatically unmerges anything for you

> What about existing programs that use libungif?

as others have pointed out, re-emerge them
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Paul Waring]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:46:20 -0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> there is no difference between 'dev users' and 'non-dev users'
> 
> you either use Gentoo or you dont

When I said "non-dev" users, I meant normal users who don't subscribe
to -dev and probably both wouldn't know that this change was happening
and also might not know how to deal with any problems that might
occur. Obviously if something breaks it's going to cause problems
regardless of whether you're a dev or not, but my question was about
how normal users will be able to fix this when they don't care about
the reasons why it's being removed.

Paul

-- 
Rogue Tory
www.roguetory.org.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 17 March 2005 10:03 am, Paul Waring wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:46:20 -0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> > there is no difference between 'dev users' and 'non-dev users'
> >
> > you either use Gentoo or you dont
>
> When I said "non-dev" users, I meant normal users who don't subscribe
> to -dev and probably both wouldn't know that this change was happening

makes more sense now

> Obviously if something breaks it's going to cause problems
> regardless of whether you're a dev or not

in this case nothing should break automagically
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell [solution: libungif is being removed]

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

All,

    the libungif removal is being delayed, as I found a large number 
(22) of packages that specifically depend on libungif.  I've created a 
bug and cc'ed the maintainers.  Once the maintainers have assured me 
that their packages work ok with giflib, then I'll make the move.  More 
details soon.  When I do I'll also post a package list so you guys know 
what needs to be re-emerged once libungif is removed.  Thanks for 
everyone's patience.

-- 
Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org>
------------------------
Sound   | Video   | PPC
ChrisWhite @ irc.freenode.net
cpw @ irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 656 bytes --]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 17:41, Chris White wrote:
> So.. basically:
>
> 1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif
> 2) They don't block each other
> 3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header
> file (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
>
> So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on
> this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
Bug 18820. This's been around forever...

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 684 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:41 +0900, Chris White wrote:
> So.. basically:
> 
> 1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif

Since when ???

> 2) They don't block each other

Why should they??

> 3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header 
> file (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
> 

Huh???

> So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker on 
> this?  Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
> 

I'll say because you are on crack is a good reason, but then I would be
nasty.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Armando Di Cianno]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2005-03-21 04:00:26 -0500 Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:41 +0900, Chris White wrote:
>> So.. basically:
>> 
>> 1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif
> 
> Since when ???
Yes, giflib installs libgif and ungif installs libungif.  So, "since
always."


>> 2) They don't block each other
> 
> Why should they??
Because they at least overwrite .... (see next section)

>> 3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header 
>> file 
>> (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
>> 
> 
> Huh???
/usr/include/gif_lib.h

>> So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker 
>> on this? 
>>   Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
>> 
> 
> I'll say because you are on crack is a good reason, but then I would 
> be
> nasty.
While not a pressing bug, imho, giflib and libungif have no reason to
both be on a system (anymore, with the  LZW patent being expired).
They do seemingly overwrite each others files, however, and that is an
issue.  Things just so happen to keep working, as they are 100%
compatbile, it seems (gif_lib.h seems to work from either, for either
... "seems to").

__armando di cianno
fafhrd@genoo.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using the GPG bundle for GNUMail

iD8DBQFCPo90wgiTPLI9xhcRArjwAJ9Wuh/Wf3tSOLYsXEH9cIu3ONy/+QCfW10l
h6NKwG+TDmwremPXsGLA3Wo=
=bksy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2007 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 04:10 -0500, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2005-03-21 04:00:26 -0500 Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:41 +0900, Chris White wrote:
> >> So.. basically:
> >> 
> >> 1) libungif and giflib both install -lgif
> > 
> > Since when ???
> Yes, giflib installs libgif and ungif installs libungif.  So, "since
> always."
> 

Right, but the one you need -lgif, and the other you need -lungif ....
So I do not see your point.

> 
> >> 2) They don't block each other
> > 
> > Why should they??
> Because they at least overwrite .... (see next section)
> 

Right, see next section.

> >> 3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header 
> >> file 
> >> (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
> >> 
> > 
> > Huh???
> /usr/include/gif_lib.h
> 

If they now do this, then somebody broke them recently:

-----
nosferatu linux-2.6-bk # epm -ql libungif | grep include
nosferatu linux-2.6-bk # epm -ql giflib | grep include
/usr/include/gif_lib.h
nosferatu linux-2.6-bk #
-----


> >> So, they pretty much install the same thing... Can I put a blocker 
> >> on this? 
> >>   Or does someone have a valid reason why I shouldn't...
> >> 
> > 
> > I'll say because you are on crack is a good reason, but then I would 
> > be
> > nasty.
> While not a pressing bug, imho, giflib and libungif have no reason to
> both be on a system (anymore, with the  LZW patent being expired).
> They do seemingly overwrite each others files, however, and that is an
> issue.  Things just so happen to keep working, as they are 100%
> compatbile, it seems (gif_lib.h seems to work from either, for either
> ... "seems to").
> 

I did not say there we not compatible, but we used to have them not
overwrite each other.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] giflib and libungif hell

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On Monday 21 March 2005 11:47, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > >> 3) libungif does some weird thing where it deletes the giflib header
> > >> file
> > >> (probably because they aren't blocking each other?)
> > >
> > > Huh???
> >
> > /usr/include/gif_lib.h
>
> If they now do this, then somebody broke them recently:
>
> -----
> nosferatu linux-2.6-bk # epm -ql libungif | grep include
> nosferatu linux-2.6-bk # epm -ql giflib | grep include
> /usr/include/gif_lib.h
> nosferatu linux-2.6-bk #
> -----
They don't blindly overwrite each other. If USE gif is set libungif installs 
gif_lib.h; otherwise giflib installs it. (Or the other way around, I'm not 
sure anymoer).

If you change the value of USE gif between installing giflib and libungif, you 
can get a system with no gif_lib.h, or a system where both packages install 
it, overwriting it. (It's not checksum-identical between the two packages.)

Do read bug 18820. I filed it about this two years ago and nothing changed 
since. 

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]