Too many regressions for Jammy inclusion

[Erich Eickmeyer]

This package introduces too many bugs and not enough benefit for inclusion in Jammy. Please remove from Proposed.

[Chris Halse Rogers (raof)]

Removing packages from jammy-proposed:
 onetbb 2021.5.0-7 in jammy
  libtbb-dev 2021.5.0-7 in jammy amd64
  libtbb-dev 2021.5.0-7 in jammy arm64
  libtbb-dev 2021.5.0-7 in jammy armhf
  libtbb-dev 2021.5.0-7 in jammy ppc64el
  libtbb-dev 2021.5.0-7 in jammy s390x
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy amd64
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy arm64
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy armhf
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy i386
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy ppc64el
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy riscv64
  libtbb-doc 2021.5.0-7 in jammy s390x
  libtbb12 2021.5.0-7 in jammy amd64
  libtbb12 2021.5.0-7 in jammy arm64
  libtbb12 2021.5.0-7 in jammy armhf
  libtbb12 2021.5.0-7 in jammy ppc64el
  libtbb12 2021.5.0-7 in jammy s390x
Comment: As requested by Eickmeyer on #ubuntu-release; introduces too many regressions. LP# 1963842
Remove [y|N]? y
1 package successfully removed.

[Matthias Klose (doko)]

tbb ftbfs, so onetbb is the package we want. Did you make an analysis which packages fail to build? The way forward is onetbb

[Matthias Klose (doko)]

so Graham did an analysis of the rdepends, and came to the conclusion that we still need both versions. We don't want to remove Python tools like numba, for the release, introducing a regression itself, but still need to build some packages using the old one. More complicated than thought, because libtbb12 ships three shared libs, two of them not changing the soname. I'll look if we can split out these.