07.07.2012 ц≈ 18:30:49 +0200 Reinhard Tartler ц▌ц│ц░ц┴ц⌠ц│ц▄: > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Stepan Golosunov <ste...@golosunov.pp.ru> > wrote: > > 07.07.2012 ц≈ 11:57:47 +0200 Reinhard Tartler ц▌ц│ц░ц┴ц⌠ц│ц▄: > >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Stepan Golosunov > >> <ste...@golosunov.pp.ru> wrote: > >> > > >> > libavutil-extra-51, libavdevice-extra-53, libavfilter-extra-2, > >> > libpostproc-extra-52, libavformat-extra-53 and libswscale-extra-2 are > >> > Multi-Arch: foreign transitional packages. > >> > > >> > This allows the packages to satisfy dependencies of > >> > foreign-architecture packages while providing only libraries for > >> > a native architecture, which is obviously incorrect. > >> > > >> > Transitional library packages should be Multi-Arch: same (but that > >> > would require making them Architecture: any). I guess these packages > >> > should just be removed, as the only non-transitional versions of the > >> > packages still existing in Debian are uninstallable 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1 > >> > packages in backports and obsolete 4:0.7.2.1+b1 armhf on debports. > >> > >> Well, AFAIUI this is a good reason to defer this for after wheezy > >> release. Is there anything we can do about this issue for wheezy? > > > > What's "this"? Existence of the packages in backports? > > They became uninstallable when libav 0.8 was uploaded to backports > > months ago. (In any case, libav-extra source package probably needs > > be removed from backports.) > > Yes, AFAIUI such removals happen on a regular basis without needing to > file a bug.
But libav-extra still hasn't been removed despite being uninstallable for months. > BTW, libavformat-extra-53 from bpo is perfectly installable for me. > Can you elaborate why they are not for you? http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libavformat-extra-53 There are two versions of libavformat-extra-53 in backports. One from libav-extra and one from libav. The first one is uninstallable as there is only one version of libavcodec-extra-53. The second one is a transitional package. (The obsolete libavformat-extra-53 probably still exists because the transitional one is Architecture: all.) % zgrep -A10 'Package: libavformat-extra-53' Packages.gz Package: libavformat-extra-53 Priority: optional Section: libs Installed-Size: 2108 Maintainer: Debian multimedia packages maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org> Architecture: i386 Source: libav-extra Version: 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1 Replaces: libavformat53 Depends: libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1), libavcodec-extra-53 (<< 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1-99), libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1), libavutil-extra-51 (<< 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1-99), libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.7), librtmp0 (>= 2.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4) Conflicts: libavformat53 -- Package: libavformat-extra-53 Priority: optional Section: libs Installed-Size: 68 Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org> Architecture: all Source: libav Version: 6:0.8.3-1~bpo60+1 Depends: libavformat53 Filename: pool/main/liba/libav/libavformat-extra-53_0.8.3-1~bpo60+1_all.deb Size: 40658 > > If the transitional packages are to stay, the correct way to proceed > > is either to change them to Multi-Arch: same, Architecture: any or to > > remove their Multi-Arch headers. > > Err, they (i.e., all but libavcodec-extra-53, and that's critical) are > already Arch: all, with Multi-arch: foreign. Do I understand you > correctly that they should rather by Multi-arch: same? Yes. Now in testing apt-get allows installing, for example, minidlna:amd64 on a system with i386 dpkg without installing libavformat53:amd64, as the Depends: libavformat53 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavformat-extra-53 (>= 4:0.8-1~) is satisfiable by libavformat-extra-53:all and libavformat53:i386 combination. _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
