On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:15:56 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: > Quoting Peter Keel (2021-10-28 11:05:19) > > It may be that this is fixed in the package, but packages depending > > on libcmark0.30.1 providing 0.30.1 and not 0.30.2 are now broken: > > > > mkvtoolnix-gui: error while loading shared libraries: libcmark.so.0.30.1: > > cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory > > This bugreport tracks the issue of the library being broken - it isn't > any longer so this bugreport is closed. > > Packages affected need to be recompiled.
At https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-cmark.html you can follow that progress. But it _appears_ that something on the packaging side isn't entirely right. I run a fully up-to-date Sid system, but libcmark0.30.2 didn't (yet?) get installed, which meant that tldr still failed. So I decide to manually install libcmark0.30.2 and that succeeded and made tldr work again. But now I have both installed on my system, which probably isn't what is supposed to happen and their package state is somewhat odd. root@bagend:~# aptitude install libcmark0.30.2 The following NEW packages will be installed: libcmark0.30.2 The following packages will be REMOVED: libcmark0.30.1{a} 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 115 kB of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. The following packages have unmet dependencies: mkvtoolnix-gui : Depends: libcmark0.30.1 (>= 0.30.1) but it is not going to be installed tldr : Depends: libcmark0.30.1 (>= 0.30.1) but it is not going to be installed The following actions will resolve these dependencies: Downgrade the following packages: 1) libcmark0.30.1 [0.30.2-1 (now, unstable) -> 0.30.1-2 (testing)] Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] The following packages will be DOWNGRADED: libcmark0.30.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libcmark0.30.2 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 downgraded, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 229 kB of archives. After unpacking 375 kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] Get: 1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 libcmark0.30.1 amd64 0.30.1-2 [114 kB] Get: 2 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 libcmark0.30.2 amd64 0.30.2-3 [115 kB] Fetched 229 kB in 0s (1,705 kB/s) Retrieving bug reports... Done Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done dpkg: warning: downgrading libcmark0.30.1:amd64 from 0.30.2-1 to 0.30.1-2 (Reading database ... 444871 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack .../libcmark0.30.1_0.30.1-2_amd64.deb ... Unpacking libcmark0.30.1:amd64 (0.30.1-2) over (0.30.2-1) ... Selecting previously unselected package libcmark0.30.2:amd64. Preparing to unpack .../libcmark0.30.2_0.30.2-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking libcmark0.30.2:amd64 (0.30.2-3) ... Setting up libcmark0.30.1:amd64 (0.30.1-2) ... Setting up libcmark0.30.2:amd64 (0.30.2-3) ... Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.32-4) ... ====== How can you help? (doc: https://wiki.debian.org/how-can-i-help ) ====== ----- Show old opportunities as well as new ones: how-can-i-help --old ----- Current status: 1 (+1) upgradable. root@bagend:~# aptitude search ~ilibcmark0 iuA libcmark0.30.1 - CommonMark parsing and rendering library iB libcmark0.30.2 - CommonMark parsing and rendering library Maybe there's nothing wrong and/or it will resolve itself over time, but I'm assuming they're not supposed to be both installed? Cheers, Diederik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
