[Pkg-tigervnc-devel] Bug#763360: Bug#754988: Bug#763360: libjpeg-turbo is hijacking binaries from other source packages

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

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 just
>
> Bad 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