(Apologies to Felipe for the duplicate reply; I didn't notice until after
sending that the To: didn't include the bug address.)
On 12/10/2012 10:15 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Package: libjack-dev
Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove
libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly
Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is
part of an intended package transition.
Is this expected to happen? Does anything strictly depend on jack2?
Not that I've been able to identify so far.
As part of this same dist-upgrade, a flood of new lib*:i386 packages are being
installed, I think as part of the ia32-libs dummy-package transition. It doesn't
seem impossible that one of them is depending on jackd2 or similar, but I
haven't been able to identify any which does.
Also, if I hold libjack-dev and jackd1, the dist-upgrade no longer attempts to
remove them - but the only packages which disappear from the upgrade or the
new-install lists are libjack-jackd2-0, libjack-jackd2-0:i386, jackd2, and
jackd2-firewire.
My only guess is that one of the new packages Recommends: one of the jack2
packages, but I have no idea which one it might be.
As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does
not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine.
Maybe we should convert libjack-dev to a dummy package like jackd.
If I understand the problem correctly from what Jonas has explained, that would
not seem like an appropriate solution.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
