Bug#863367: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 04:31:46PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > In general, I disagree that we should declare a conflict at both > sides of the conflict and that the package manager should be able > to deal with a conflict on just one side. It's not a conflict that > involves version numbers. The idea behind not automatically having the conflict effect both sides is that a package which declares a conflict has a competitive advantage over the conflictee as it reduces the score of the conflictee which makes it easier for the conflictor to win against it in fights. If apt would apply the conflict automatically on both sides the advantage disappears. That hinders the successful resolution of the usual situation in case a conflict isn't declared on both sides: The package which hasn't the conflict is the "old" package (not updated for the release e.g. because it was removed) which should loose against the "new" package which has the conflict declared. Beside that little heuristic trickery I believe it to be cleaner and more discoverable for a user that such a conflict exists and is intended if it is declared on both sides. And lastly, I guess 'domain knowledge' is involved as we wouldn't be talking if libssl-dev would be a new mail-transport-agent. It would be perfectly clear that it must conflict with the others even if there is no technical reason for it given that the other mail-transport-agents already conflict with it. Best regards David Kalnischkies signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#863367: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 04:00:58PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Control: reassign -1 libssl-dev 1.1.0e-2 > Control: retitle -1 libssl-dev: declare conflict with libssl1.0-dev to help > apt find solutions [...] > Not being installable is the problem of the package which isn't > installable – even if that is due to bugs in a package manager! So why does this bug get assigned to libssl-dev then and not to libecryptfs-dev, with maybe a wishlist bug against libssl-dev (and apt)? In general, I disagree that we should declare a conflict at both sides of the conflict and that the package manager should be able to deal with a conflict on just one side. It's not a conflict that involves version numbers. However, if everybody agrees that this is the best solution for the next release, I will need permission from the release team to make such a change. Kurt
Processed: Re: Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 libssl-dev 1.1.0e-2 Bug #863367 [apt] apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> libssl-dev Bug reassigned from package 'apt' to 'libssl-dev'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #863367 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #863367 to the same values previously set Bug #863367 [libssl-dev] apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> libssl-dev Marked as found in versions openssl/1.1.0e-2. > retitle -1 libssl-dev: declare conflict with libssl1.0-dev to help apt find > solutions Bug #863367 [libssl-dev] apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> libssl-dev Changed Bug title to 'libssl-dev: declare conflict with libssl1.0-dev to help apt find solutions' from 'apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> libssl-dev'. -- 863367: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=863367 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
Control: reassign -1 libssl-dev 1.1.0e-2 Control: retitle -1 libssl-dev: declare conflict with libssl1.0-dev to help apt find solutions On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:32:34AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Control: reassign -1 apt > Control: retitle -1 apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> > libssl-dev > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:16:30PM +0200, s3v wrote: > > Package: libecryptfs-dev > > Severity: grave > > Justification: renders package unusable (technically wishlist, but people might disagree in practice, so I will leave severity decisions at this stage to maintainers/release team – please realize that this means this bug is RELEASE CRITICAL atm) General advice: Don't (re)assign package uninstallabilites to apt. The team has neither the knowledge nor the manpower to deal with the installation problems of more than 5 packages in existance. All it does achieve is that it will get downgraded on the spot to normal or lower and left to die^Wbe closed in a couple years in the already existing bugpile; in short: Not being installable is the problem of the package which isn't installable – even if that is due to bugs in a package manager! > libecryptfs-dev Is not actually uninstallable, the core problem is that > you have libssl1.0-dev installed and apt fails to find the solution to > solve the dependencies: > > # apt-get install libtspi-dev […] > root@localhost:/# apt-get install libtspi-dev libssl-dev […] > The other direction works: > > # apt-get install libh323plus-dev The defining difference between the two is that libssl1.0-dev conflicts with libssl-dev while the later doesn't with the first. As you are trying to express a mutially exclusive relationship between two packages which should both be shipped in the release it would be a good idea to declare this exclusiveness on both sides and indeed in a quick test that is already enough to give apt the hint it needs as this changes the scoring for the little 1on1 cagefights happening behind the scenes. Have a look at them with -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=1 (kids-friendly as no violence is depicted) That wasn't all to hard to figure out and I am pretty sure that would have happened just as fast/good if assigned to one of the involved packages rather than to apt, which always carries the risk of getting ignored instead… I was actually 2 seconds away from tagging it 'wishlist'¹ for apt and get on with never looking at it again in my lifetime. Note that this solution might not be a good one, but that requires knowledge about the packages involved which I just don't have as hinted above. Please CC de...@lists.debian.org if there are any questions you think we could answer. Best regards David Kalnischkies ¹ The cagefights are a design decision in the current default resolver, which is impossible^Whard to change and absolutely not going to happen any time soon yet alone days before release. As such it would qualify for 'wishlist'. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
Control: reassign -1 apt Control: retitle -1 apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> libssl-dev On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:16:30PM +0200, s3v wrote: > Package: libecryptfs-dev > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > > Currently libecryptfs-dev is uninstallable on Stretch. > This is the output when trying to install: > > > # apt-get install libecryptfs-dev > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created > or been moved out of Incoming. > The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > libecryptfs-dev : Depends: libtspi-dev but it is not going to be installed > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > > > Thanks for reading. Thanks for your bug report. libecryptfs-dev Is not actually uninstallable, the core problem is that you have libssl1.0-dev installed and apt fails to find the solution to solve the dependencies: # apt-get install libtspi-dev Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: libtspi-dev : Depends: libssl-dev but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. root@localhost:/# apt-get install libtspi-dev libssl-dev Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: libssl1.0-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: libssl-dev libtspi-dev 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B/2206 kB of archives. After this operation, 579 kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] The other direction works: # apt-get install libh323plus-dev Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following additional packages will be installed: libh323-1.24.0v5 libpt-dev libpt2.10.11 libpulse-dev libsdl1.2-dev libssl1.0-dev The following packages will be REMOVED: libssl-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: libh323-1.24.0v5 libh323plus-dev libpt-dev libpt2.10.11 libpulse-dev libsdl1.2-dev libssl1.0-dev 0 upgraded, 7 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 6731 kB/9009 kB of archives. After this operation, 60.8 MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] I expect a lot of people will run into this bug during the lifetime of stretch. > Regards. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Processed: Re: Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 apt Bug #863367 [libecryptfs-dev] libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency Bug reassigned from package 'libecryptfs-dev' to 'apt'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #863367 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #863367 to the same values previously set > retitle -1 apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> > libssl-dev Bug #863367 [apt] libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency Changed Bug title to 'apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev -> libssl-dev' from 'libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency'. -- 863367: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=863367 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#863367: libecryptfs-dev: unable to install because of unmet dependency
Package: libecryptfs-dev Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable Currently libecryptfs-dev is uninstallable on Stretch. This is the output when trying to install: # apt-get install libecryptfs-dev Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: libecryptfs-dev : Depends: libtspi-dev but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. Thanks for reading. Regards. -- System Information: Debian Release: 9.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
