Upgrading libpng: shall we move to 1.4.x or 1.5.x?

[Tom Lane]

Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> writes:
> Once upon a time, Tom Lane <tgl at redhat.com> said:
>> Any opinions on which way to jump?

> How hard is it to fix source that accesses the fields directly?  Do all
> the fields that were previously exposed have direct accessor functions?

AFAIK, they all do, and it should be a pretty straightforward matter to
fix things.  Just tedious.  FWIW, I did a bit more analysis and noted
that the majority of the problems are concentrated in just a few
packages, eg GraphicsMagick has 234 warnings and texlive 119.  The
majority of the 74 packages with such issues only have a couple.
(I'll post a complete list of affected packages once it's time to do
the work, of course.)

> Since all the packages that depend on libpng would have to be rebuilt
> twice if you don't go to the latest version now, I'd say go ahead and
> get it over with once (i.e. go to 1.5).

Yeah, that's sort of my feeling as well.  But I could understand
package maintainers getting ticked off over having to do this work
"right now" in order to rebuild their packages.  On the other hand,
it looks like the glib guys broke considerably more packages than
this without any by-your-leave, so maybe I'm just being too polite.

			regards, tom lane