On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > (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.
Ah, this hints at a clue. However, I'm not quite sure if I'm correct or how can we improve it. I'm going to assume ia32-libs-i386 is attempting an install of version >= 1:0.2. Normal upgrades (that is, without ia32-libs) shouldn't have a problem. However, with multiarch we have the following problem: ia32-libs pulls in ia32-libs-i386, which only exists in arch:i386; ia32-libs-i386 depends on libjack-jackd2-0 (>= 1.9.5~dfsg-14) | libjack0 (>= 1:0.118+svn3796-7) Apt always tries to install the first alternative first, so it tries to install libjack-jack2-0:i386 libjack-jack2-0 in turn Conflicts with libjack0 (in all archs), which causes your libjack0:amd64 to be scheduled for removal, whic in turn causes jackd1 to be removed. I guess you have jackd installed, which causes apt to try to install jackd2 (because jackd1 is being removed), which leaves you with a working jack2 server. The headers are not installed because nothing causes libjack-jack2-dev to be installed, and libjack-dev depends on libjack0 (which is no longer installed). > > 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. This is consistent with the above theory. > >>> 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. It could be (but I haven't thought this through). If we: 1. Rename libjack-dev to libjack-jack1-dev. 2. Create a libjack-dev that Depends on libjack-jack1-dev | libjack-jack2-dev Maybe the upgrade now would now keep the headers installed, since after libjack-jack1-dev is marked as not installed, apt would try to install libjack-jack2-dev. I'm not quite sure the above would really work. Thoughts? -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
