Bug#1109176: Broken liblapacke:amd64 Breaks on libatlas3-base

[Jochen Sprickerhof]

Hi,

I talked to the apt maintainer and other experienced DDs at DebConf and we don't think it will work without a transition package in bookworm. Jilian said that it would work with apt from experimental but that's not an option. Basically apt will sort keeping libatlas3-base installed over any other solution as long as there is no package with the same name in Trixie. You can try editing the Packages files in /var/lib/apt directly if you want to test other solutions.

Feel free to take it from here.

Cheers Jochen

Am 19. Juli 2025 18:47:17 MESZ schrieb "M. Zhou" <lumin at debian.org>:
>I disagree. You may have incorrectly understood the package
>relationship here.
>
>The binary package liblapacke is not a transitional package.
>The latest liblapacke cannot provide what the old libatlas3-base
>package provides. Instead, libatlas3-base is always a candidate
>that may serve as a dependency of liblapacke. After some
>point, libatlas3-base get removed, and hence existing packages
>depending on libatlas3-base has to be built against the other
>blas/lapack impelementations.
>
>The original Breaks relationship is due to the underlying
>update-alternatives mechanism. We are sure liblapacke does
>not work with libatlas3-base as the actual implementation.
>
>The correct solution is to simply ask apt to get rid of
>libatlas3-base. Please do not introduce a NEW binary package.
>This is not transition. This is deprecation, which is
>exactly Breaks+Repalces does.
>
>Let me handle this bug. I'm co-maintainer of src:lapack.
>
>On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 17:06 +0200, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I looked into it a bit more and got it working with a transitional dummy 
>> package as described here:
>> 
>> https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages
>> 
>> I have added this to lapack:
>> 
>> Package: libatlas3-base
>>   Depends: libblas3, ${misc:Depends}
>>   Architecture: all
>>   Priority: optional
>>   Section: oldlibs
>>   Description: transitional package
>>    This is a transitional package. It can safely be removed.
>> 
>> As it is already late for trixie I uploaded it to NEW/experimental. The 
>> release team agreed to take it afterwards. I will take care of the rest 
>> unless someone disagrees with the approach.
>> 
>> Cheers Jochen
>> 
>> 
>> * Jochen Sprickerhof <jspricke at debian.org> [2025-07-18 10:26]:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > * M. Zhou <lumin at debian.org> [2025-07-17 22:35]:
>> > > I'm still a little bit confused about the report.
>> > > 
>> > > Based on the podman image debian:bookwork, I can upgrade psfex without apt
>> > > reporting issue like reported. So the problem seems to be highly specific
>> > > to the -14 revision of atlas.
>> > 
>> > There is a reproducer in the initial bug report that is still valid 
>> > for me.
>> > 
>> > > Do that mean making lapack break the -14 version is enough to fix this bug?
>> > > ```
>> > > -        libatlas3-base (<< 3.10.3-14)
>> > > +        libatlas3-base
>> > > ```
>> > 
>> > From a quick look libatlas3-base in bookworm was split into multiple 
>> > packages and there is a Break: but no Replaces: see
>> > 
>> > https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition
>> > 
>> > I think #7 applies.
>> > 
>> > Cheers Jochen
>> 
>