>>There is no other part of the libgphoto2 code that links to gd.
>
>that statement is not true at all
>
>https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Agphoto%2Flibgphoto2%20gd&type=code
https://github.com/gphoto/libgphoto2/blob/807d44d0dcb0a8a8df151baa27830127fbbbbef6/configure.ac#L373-L382

Duh, of course the libgphoto2 configure script refers to gd / libgd. But this does not refute my statement.

I've checked the entire source code of libgphoto2 for references, that's how I've found all the use cases of gd, and none of those are relevant in lib32.

I'd suggest you do the same checking as I did if you are in doubt.

The configure script of libgphoto2 let's one easily disable gd support.

@sl1pkn07 I see the obvious pattern with you that you like to try to contradict others apparently just for the sake of it. But this kind of disagreement that you presented here is not a counterpoint at all.

Also you seem to like to maintain newly introduced multimedia libraries in lib32 that have no use case whatsoever. You also tend to cling to extremely old, deprecated, discontinued software that have no users on AUR apart from you.

Deleting lib32-gd of course will allow the deletion of lib32-libheif, a package you maintain in vain, because that also falls into the category of "too new, so no imaginable practical use cases at all in lib32".

Please try, really try to refrain from coming up with moot arguments. Such things do not contribute anything useful to deciding the fate of packages, and the attitude behind it is also detrimental to the community as a whole.