Bug#772183: unblock: libjpeg6b/1:6b2-2
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 04:58:37PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-03-14 14:12, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:22:17AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-23 17:49, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >>> Control: tags -1 wontfix
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> As debated in #774737, we will only be shipping with one implementation
> >>> of libjpeg, so I am afraid I will have to decline this request.
> >
> > Hello Niels,
> >
> > The release team has yet to provide a rationale for this decision.
> > It is quite unprecedented for the release team to reject a package without
> > providing a justification.
> >
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> We (the RT and security team) have on numerous occasions chosen to only
> ship and support at most one implementation of a given
> interface/program/etc. It happens on a regular basis.
Indeed, but this stay exceptional event and in all case so far some rationale
were provided. This is not the case here. People ask me what happened and I
cannot answer.
> > IJG libjpeg62 has been in Debian for more than 15 years.
> > IJG libjpeg62 is still required for building LSB packages. Without it, jessie will not be usable
> > for building LSB packages.
> You mean to say that:
>
> 1. our lsb packages will FTBFS/be uninstallable in Jessie in the
> absence of libjpeg62?
>
> 2. libjpeg62-turbo does not implement the [LSB 4.1 SPEC]?
No I do not mean any of these. libjpeg62-turbo can be used to execute LSB binaries.
However to compile true LSB binaries (that can run on non libjpeg-turbo LSB system) still
require IJG libjpeg62, because libjpeg-turbo pull in extra symbols.
> AFAICT, it cannot be 1) given that the lsb packages seems to depend on
> libjpeg62-turbo. So I am guessing you mean 2)? In which case, you seem
> to have failed to mention this to the tech-ctte when the issue was
> brought before them in [#717076].
> At least a quick search suggests that only Simon McVittie ever
> mentions LSB. Though by all means, please prove me wrong if I missed it
> - I did not re-read the entire thread.
>
> If you indeed failed to mention it, then I suggest you ask the tech-ctte
> to reconsider their position. Our decision will remain unchanged unless
> the tech-ctte amends their decision.
The question the CTTE was referred is unrelated to libjpeg62, and the CTTE did not
ask for my input.
Given its history, I never fancied there was actual plan to remove libjpeg62
from stable.
Cheers,
Bill.
Reply to: