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 <[email protected]> [2025-07-18 10:26]: > > Hi, > > > > * M. Zhou <[email protected]> [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 >
