severity #1058678 serious thanks Hi Helmut,
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:18 PM Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > did you know that blt participates in architecture bootstrap? It's > required for building the Python interpreter for instance and thus far, > this has all worked out well, but now you added a build dependency on > libjpeg-dev. libjpeg-turbo in turn Build-Depends on default-jdk and > while it builds its -java package as an Arch:all package, the jdk > actually is being used as it stuffs jni symbols into the main library, > so really the Arch:any package already requires default-jdk. So now we > have a path from Python to Java. We also have a path from Java to Python > already, so your blt upload introduces a bootstrap dependency cycle and > this is bad. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware about these implications. Meanwhile, I'm setting this bug severity to serious and will fix it as soon as possible. > > I suggest that you temporarily revert this change in unstable to restore > the ability to bootstrap Debian from source. I'll do that. > > Then let's figure out the best way to break the cycle before re-enabling > jpeg support. This has mostly worked earlier, because libjpeg-turbo was > not part of the bootstrap set. Even adding libjpeg-turbo seems fine in > principle, but Java less so. As explained earlier, breaking the cycle > between libjpeg-turbo and Java is harder, because there are > Java-specific symbols in the main library. Making jpeg support optional > in blt seems similarly impractical to me. This is definitely more work > than just enabling jpeg support unfortunately. Do you have more ideas? Can someone investigate if blt is really necessary for Python now? It's a very old unmaintained piece of software, and I think that dependence of Python on it should be a bug. Again, I'll revert the change shortly, but is there any way I can help with untangling Python from blt? Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan
