Oh. I see. The -101 was from experimental. I think installed it long time ago, because I needed a specific version is from octave-dev that had important fix for me, and it probably also pulled hdf from experimental at the same time.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, 11:11 Witold Baryluk <witold.bary...@gmail.com wrote: > I didn't realise it was coming from experimental. > > I was simply doing apt dist-upgrade. > > I uninstalled old (and not installed new) package, that triggered removal > of octave-dev, then reinstalled octave-dev, and it installed fine, but also > pulled this new version of hdf5-mpich-103. I am not at the computer right > now, but I will check apt and dpkg logs. > > > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, 11:05 Gilles Filippini <p...@debian.org wrote: > >> On 2018-12-05 10:53, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:35:17AM +0100, Gilles Filippini wrote: >> >> Control: severity -1 wishlist >> >> Control: tags -1 + wontfix >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On 2018-12-05 00:34, Witold Baryluk wrote: >> >> > Package: libhdf5-mpich-103 >> >> > Severity: important >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The following additional packages will be installed: >> >> > libhdf5-mpich-103 >> >> > The following NEW packages will be installed: >> >> > libhdf5-mpich-103 >> >> > 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 141 not upgraded. >> >> > 2 not fully installed or removed. >> >> > Need to get 0 B/1365 kB of archives. >> >> > After this operation, 4688 kB of additional disk space will be used. >> >> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] >> >> > (Reading database ... 551515 files and directories currently >> installed.) >> >> > Preparing to unpack .../libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb >> ... >> >> > Unpacking libhdf5-mpich-103:amd64 (1.10.4+repack-1) ... >> >> > dpkg: error processing archive >> >> > /var/cache/apt/archives/libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb >> >> > (--unpack): >> >> > trying to overwrite >> >> > '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libhdf5_mpich_fortran.so.100', which is >> >> > also in package libhdf5-mpich-101:amd64 1.10.2+repack-1~exp1 >> >> > Errors were encountered while processing: >> >> > /var/cache/apt/archives/libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb >> >> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) >> >> >> >> I do not agree: HDF5 1.10.2 was uploaded to experimental only. While >> >> this >> >> conflict do exist, there is no unhandled conflict with previous >> >> releases >> >> from testing or unstable. >> > >> > What is the problem with adding Replaces+Conflicts >> > also for libhdf5-mpich-101? >> > >> > I agree that the severity looks less clear if this was >> > experimental-only, >> > but it is also pretty easy to do. >> >> Sure, this is an unfortunate oversight from me. But (1) hdf5 1.10.4 is >> currently >> transitioning and I don't want to delay that anymore, and (2) I expect >> that >> anybody installing packages from experimental is able to deal with this >> kind >> of conflict. >> >> > In theory (likely not applicable here) it is even possible that some >> > downstream distribution like Ubuntu shipped the experimental version >> > in a stable release. >> >> No, ubuntu didn't ship any HDF5 release from experimental. And packages >> from >> experimental must not be used in any stable release. Quoting the FAQ: >> > Experimental is used for packages which are still being developed, and >> > with >> > a high risk of breaking your system. It's used by developers who'd like >> > to >> > study and test bleeding edge software. Users shouldn't be using >> > packages >> > from there, because they can be dangerous and harmful even for the most >> > experienced people. >> >> Thanks, >> >> _g. >> >> >>