<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/5/9, Achim Bohnet <<a href="mailto:ach@mpe.mpg.de">ach@mpe.mpg.de</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wednesday, 9. May 2007, Gilles Caulier wrote:<br>> 2007/5/9, Achim Bohnet <<a href="mailto:ach@mpe.mpg.de">ach@mpe.mpg.de</a>>:<br>> ><br>> > On Wednesday, 9. May 2007, Angelo Naselli wrote:<br>> > > Alle mercoledì 9 maggio 2007, Colin Guthrie ha scritto:
<br>> > > > Angelo Naselli wrote:<br>> > > > > Alle martedì 8 maggio 2007, Colin Guthrie ha scritto:<br>> > > > >> Angelo Naselli wrote:<br>> > > > >>> Col can you test the binary compatibility in cooker? I mean IIRC
<br>> > there<br>> > > > >>> was 0.1.2 in it now you upgraded to 0.1.4 digikam should start<br>> > correctly.<br>> > > > >> Yeah I tested it prior to committing/submitting it and it seems to
<br>> > be<br>> > > > >> fine, so I guess you are right in that it was the 0.1.1 -> 0.1.2that<br>> > > > >> broke things. The version I updated in cooker was indeed 0.1.2.<br>
> > > > >><br>> > > > >> Didn't try to do anything complex in dk but nothing jumped out at<br>> > me.<br>> > > > >><br>> > > > >> Col<br>> > > > >>
<br>> > > > > Col could you please test this one against 0.1.2?<br>> > > > > <a href="http://www.linux.it/~anaselli/kipi-plugins/libkexiv2-0.1.5.tar.bz2">http://www.linux.it/~anaselli/kipi-plugins/libkexiv2-0.1.5.tar.bz2
</a><br>> > > ><br>> > > > It creates a different automatic provides:<br>> > > ><br>> > > > The older one (0.1.4) generates:<br>> > > > libkexiv2.so.0()(64bit)<br>
> > > ><br>> > > > and the 0.1.5 generates a provide of:<br>> > > > libkexiv2.so.1()(64bit)<br>> > ><br>> > > ><br>> > > > So indeed the major of the library has changed.
<br>> > > hmm, not the major, but the revision.<br>> > > > I can bump the major and it should in theory co-install with the older<br>> > > > version, but I'll still get conflicts on the file:
<br>> > > > /usr/lib64/libkexiv2.la<br>> > > > (is this even needed? - I've had good success with just deleting them<br>> > in<br>> > > > the past, but I've also been stung with some KDE apps needing them!)
<br>> > > ><br>> > > > Regardless it will mean we can rebuild the dependant apps and<br>> > everything<br>> > > > will eventually work. Is this the desired effect?<br>> > > Well it should have been done after liblexiv2
0.1.1 (e.g. for 0.1.2).<br>> > > But if i understood well the rule<br>> > > <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Versioning">http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Versioning
</a><br>> > > 2:1:1 should mean revision is 2, age is 1<br>> > > so it should be back compatible with libkexiv (2-1=1) 1:X:X e.g. ><br>> > libkexiv2 0.1.2<br>> > > I would have expected digikam working with the new library.
<br>> > ><br>> > > I'm comfused... and a bit tired to investigate :/<br>> ><br>> > Hi Angelo,<br>> ><br>> > thx for libkexiv2 0.1.5 with libkexiv2.so.1. Now digikam can still use
<br>> > 0.1.1<br>> > with libkexiv2.so.0.<br>> ><br>> > I've tried rebuilding digikam 0.9.1 with likexiv2 0.1.5 and this also<br>> > works fine.<br>> ><br>> > At least in kubuntu only digikam and digikamimageplugins depend on
<br>> > libkexiv2<br>> > and those two are merged in 0.9.1. PUh, that's easy ;)<br>><br>><br>> Achim, digiKam & DigikamImagePluguins have been merged with 0.9.2 release,<br>> not 0.9.1 (:=)))
<br><br>Everything I write has to be read with 90 % fuzzy mode turned on ;)</blockquote><div><br>Ah, I'm not alone to use this mode as well (:=)))...<br><br>Gilles</div></div><br>