2004.07.10 17:56 "[Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt

2004.07.10 19:56 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt

I agree that releasing 3.7.0 as 4.0.0 would be the best answer. I almost suggested it. Thanks.

But I'm wondering, why I don't have any feedback from the Debian maintainer? Being a Debian user I've looked at the libtiff's bug reports in Debian from time to time and there are bugs, which are certainly should be redirected to upstream, but they are not. At least maintainer may point users to our Bugzilla page. Otherwise bugs stay undiscovered by the library developers.

Please understand that I mean no disrespect to the Debian maintainer in this comment. I think he just got behind. As an aspiring debian developer (in the new maintainer queue) and someone who cares a great deal about this sort of thing, I'm on a personal crusade to close the loop on this kind of thing particularly for packages I am interested. I contacted the debian maintainer and asked what I could do to help, what the status was, etc. He replied that he had not yet reported it and that if I wanted to help out, I could do that, so I did. I've offered (but just today) to help with maintenance (for debian) of the tiff packages.

In other words, I agree whole-heartedly with your comment here, hence my report. Many thanks for being responsive and helpful.

I'm subscribed to this list and to the debian package tracking system for the tiff package. As soon as I see 4.0.0, I will immediately offer to the current maintainer to create Debian packages for it. Once this is done, we can figure out how to resolve the problem that is there in Debian now. There are several options, but they don't need to be discussed here, unless you're interested, in which case I'm happy to elaborate. (I'll be away from email for the rest of the day though.)

Thanks again!