On 03/10/14 12:14, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 01:41:02AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:On 30/09/14 11:32, Bill Allombert wrote:On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:Bill, I am very sorry that I have not Cced everything related to the libjpeg-transition to you. I have honestly believed that you and everyone else involved was following the transition plan as mentioned in #717076#225. As for the takover of the libjpeg62* packages it was discussed in the transition plan bug #754988.The CTTE made it clear I was only required to remove the Provides: libjpeg-dev It did not authorise you to hijack the libjpeg8 and libjpeg62 binaries, and you should not have made a plan that required it. Hijacking binary packages that are still provided by other sources is extremely crude. At the minimum, you should have waited for me to stop providing them before uploading to unstable. Please abide by the CTTE decision and revert that. You cannot ask me to obey the CTTE decision while blatantly disregarding it. You have been bullying me from the start, but this tops it all.This comment makes me sad... I don't know how not "hijacking" a package that is in old libs, that should have been removed from the archive a long time ago, and that is not going to be installable anyway even if it's not "hijacked" is going to be any useful, but oh well... You seem to think that Ondřej did this in bad faith, but it justBad faith ? No I do not think so.
That's great. Your comment made me think otherwise.
seemed like the sensible thing to do, and I didn't see any problem with the proposed plan. After all, libjpeg62 had been long deprecated in favor of libjpeg8. Neither of us thought you would care about libjpeg62 anymore...... and neither of you bothered to ask me.
I would have thought you would be following the ctte bug and you would have seen the transition bug, which was mentioned in there. But I could have certainly added an explicit Cc. Sorry for that.
libjpeg62 is required for compatibility with the LSB. libjpeg62-dev is required for building LSB packages.
Both of those are provided by libjpeg-turbo, with 100% compatible ABI. So what is the problem with LSB compliance? Does the LSB require that libjpeg.so.62 be the IJG version of the library, and that it be shipped in a libjpeg62 .deb package?
AFAICS from reading http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/toclibjpeg.html, what is required is a library with SONAME libjpeg.so.62 implementing those symbols and having those headers. AFAIK, libjpeg-turbo's libjpeg62 does that, so we should still be LSB-compliant. Isn't that right?
Regards, Emilio