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

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,


looking a bit from the outside it looks to me as different questions
discussed in parallel.



The one question is how we came here.

* Bill Allombert (ballombe at debian.org) [141003 12:15]:
> 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.

> Bad faith ? No I do not think so.
> [...]
> ... and neither of you bothered to ask me.

Ondřej already said he thought while uploading that you were involved,
and notices now that you weren't and is sorry that he didn't CC you to
all mails. 

I can understand that you are angry about the uploaded packages. I'm
not going to argue about what the tech ctte resolution was, and what
could or should be interpreted into it or not, because that is not
helpful. Uploading the package as happend and without proper
discussion before was a mistake, and Ondřej already accepted his
responsibility for it. So while an mistake is never good, mistakes can
happen, and I personally always consider it a good thing if people
stand to their actions and apologize if appropriate.

I hope we could leave it as that for the upload - nobody has a time
machine to undo the upload, but we could try to make it better now and
discuss where we should go.



The other question is: Where from here? What should be the appropriate
state of packages within Debian for the release? It's a pity that we
lost time, but we still could adjust things so they are best for
Debian, based on the (spirit of the) initial decision of the tech ctte
(and in case the relevant people cannot agree, of course another
decision of the tech ctte would be possible, but I really hope we
could avoid that and conclude on something acceptable for all). (And
of course, any question not already decided by the tech ctte could be
discussed and hopefully also answered here - which source package will
build libjpeg62* is part of that.)



Andi