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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
