Control: reassign -1 aptitude
On 2013-03-25 11:25:37, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Source: libav
> Version: 6:9.4-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
> I was updating the system today and came across this :-
>
> $ sudo aptitude install libswscale2=6:9.4-1 libswscale-dev=6:9.4-1
> libavutil-dev=6:9.4-1 libavcodec-dev=6:9.4-1 libavutil52=6:9.4-1
> libavformat-dev=6:9.4-1 libavformat54=6:9.4-1 -y
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> libavcodec-extra-54{ab}
> The following packages will be upgraded:
> libavcodec-dev libavformat-dev libavformat54 libavutil-dev
> libavutil52 libswscale-dev libswscale2
> 7 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 6,876 kB of archives. After unpacking 7,697 kB will be used.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libavcodec54 : Conflicts: libavcodec-extra-54 but 6:9.4-1 is to be installed.
> libavcodec-extra-54 : Conflicts: libavcodec54 but 6:9.3-1 is installed.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
>
> Remove the following packages:
> 1) libavcodec54
>
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> libavcodec-extra-54{a}
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> libavcodec54{a}
> The following packages will be upgraded:
> libavcodec-dev libavformat-dev libavformat54 libavutil-dev
> libavutil52 libswscale-dev libswscale2
> 7 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 6,876 kB of archives. After unpacking 975 kB will be used.
>
> While I don't understand all the implications of the above upgrade,
> however I do understand that one of the packages is being removed
> while the other is taking it's place. I didn't find anything in the
> changelog as to why this is desirable. Also why it took one choice
> when it says there are two choices.
>
> Looking forward for more info. Maybe I did something wrong.On 2013-03-25 13:20:35, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM, shirish शिरीष <shirisha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > at bottom :- > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Reinhard Tartler <siret...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Besides having libavcodec54 being replaced with libavcodec-extra-54 > >> (the latter is binary compatible with the former, but provides more > >> functionality, hence the "-extra-"), what exact problems do you > >> experience? > > > > that's not the question at all. I have no problems if one library is > > being replaced by another library which has better or more features, > > if it was there in the changelog somewhere about why the change is > > there but there is nothing to suggest the same in the changelogs of > > any of them of why it happens. > > > > libav (6:9.4-1) experimental; urgency=low > > > > * Imported Upstream version 9.4 > > - h264: check for luma and chroma bit dept being equal (CVE-2013-2277) > > - iff: validate CMAP palette size (CVE-2013-2495) > > - Thus, closes: #703200 > > * debian/watch: download xz files and tigthen checks > > > > -- Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de> Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:30:01 +0100 > > > > That changelog is for the whole lot of them. Either it should have > > been part of the changelog so the user knows this is expected or > > something. The other thing I dunno if this library needs more memory > > than the regular library or something like that (extra functionality = > > extra memory, I do understand not necessary all the time but still ) > > . I hope I am able to make sense. > > I cannot imagine that any of the changes from 6:9.3-1 to 6:9.4-1 could > cause this, that's why nothing is mentioned in the change log. > > >From your description I understand that this is some internal warning > from dpkg, and I am therefore inclined to reassign this bug there for > further investigation. I have not been able to reproduce the described > errors in my test chroots. The warning is from aptitude: http://sources.debian.net/src/aptitude/0.6.11-1/src/generic/problemresolver/problemresolver.h/#L2495 So let's reassign this issue to aptitude. I concur with Reinhard that no changes in libav would explain the issue. Let's see what the aptitude maintainers have to say about it. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
