On 2015-02-02 00:04, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:02:38AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: >> I am afraid I do not see how removing libjpeg9 from testing is >> inconsistent with the tech-ctte decision. > > You need to reread the full decision in context. > >> The very first item of their >> resolution text states that: >> >> 1. [...] The release team does not want to have more than one libjpeg >> implementation. > > This is in the Whereas part, not in the Therefore. Thus this is what the > release team want, but not necessarily what the TC has decided. > >> Then further down, they follow up with: >> >> 10. The Technical Committee resolves that libjpeg-turbo should >> become the libjpeg implementation in Debian, [...] > > And this is the case now. However the TC did not say all other libjpeg > implementations need to be removed from testing.
The release team decided that there would be only one libjpeg implementation in Jessie. The tech-ctte made the choice of which implementation. > Indeed wheezy includes both libjpeg6b and libjpeg8 so there is a > precedent for that. At the very least it is customary to provide old > libraries in the next release as part of the oldlibs section. > I see no precedent for or against that. We got plenty of libraries Wheezy that will be upgraded without the old version of the library being available in Jessie. In fact, I /suspect/ that for most libraries it is more common to *not* do this. > Then the TC gives a detailed view fo what should happens: > > 12. [...] > > This is an unambiguous statement that they only intent the "Provides: > libjpeg-dev" of libjpeg8 to be removed and not the whole package, otherwise > they would have stated it directly (in particular since removing libjpeg8 > automatically remove the Provides making it a non-issue). > The text shows they anticipate the existence of multiple 'real libjpeg*-dev > packages' but only one providing libjpeg-dev. > I believe this makes sense, as decision of the release only affects testing. Accordingly, there is nothing preventing multiple implementations of libjpeg in testing or unstable. > And in any case, the release team never communicated to me their intent to > remove libjpeg6b, libjpeg8 and libjpeg9 from jessie. I only learned about > it in January from the archive notification. And so far no rationale has been > given. > > Cheers, > I am sorry you feel that way. I assumed that you were aware, given that you replied to the tech-ctte decision in which our statement was included (in fact, you retained it in quoted part of your reply). ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
