Re: openjpeg / stretch
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> wrote:
> On 31/05/16 12:00, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> [adding debian-release]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> in jessie we have the unfortunate situation of having two copies of
>>>> openjpeg in the archive src:openjpeg and src:openjpeg2. Can you get
>>>> rid of openjpeg for stretch? We accept two source packages for transition
>>>> purposes, but these need to be sorted out by the subsequent release.
>>>
>>> That does not seems doable [*]. openjpeg 1.x and openjpeg 2.x have
>>> different API, and it requires a significant effort to move from one
>>> API to the other. Without upstream help from each packages, this
>>> cannot possibly be done (at least by me).
>>>
>>> If someone wants to volunteer, some projects have successfully moved
>>> from openjpeg 1.x to openjpeg 2.x (from the top of my head:
>>> mupdf/gdal/leptonlib) so some projects may have code so that they
>>> compile against either openjpeg 1.x or openjpeg 2.x using #idef
>>> triggered during configuration time.
>>>
>>> The other option is to deactivate JPEG 2000 support from those
>>> packages. imagemagick (accidentally) removed support for JPEG 2000
>>> (#773530) and no one complained so far.
>>
>> Actually the issue is maybe a little more than just a security
>> concern. See the bug report #825907.
>
> Is openjpeg not using versioned symbols?
No (very very few packages are actually using this trick AFAIK).
>> I'll leave it to debian-release to decide the severity of this bug.
>> Meanwhile I'll track package(s) still using OpenJPEG 1.5.x API.
>
> You can do like it is being done for jasper: file bugs with severity:important
> against all the rdeps, telling them we want to remove openjpeg from Stretch for
> security reasons, and that the bugs will get bumped to RC in some time. Then we
> can see how things evolve and what to do next.
>
> See
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=jasper-rm;users=jmm@debian.org
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/jasper-rm.html
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2016/03/msg00006.html
>
> How does that sound?
Sound good! Severity: important is not too annoying for packager, but
clear enough. I'll do that ASAP.
Thanks
-M
Reply to: