Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On 27/02/2013 13:11, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On 2013-02-27 09:46, Ana Guerrero wrote: >> Bad news, it doesn't fully work. A couple of cases: [...] > Having real metapackages libhdf5-serial, libhdf5-openmpi, libhdf5-mpich2 > that depend on their corresponding libhdf5-foo (=$binvers) (and the libraries > recommend these variant-metapackages vice versa) could be a possible > path for the future to keep the hdf5 variant over soname changes. Until we have a correct solution, what would you think about uploading Andreas solution ? It is still better than the current solution, don't you think? S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On 2013-02-27 09:46, Ana Guerrero wrote: > Bad news, it doesn't fully work. A couple of cases: > > A) Minimal installation of Squeeze (actually a cowbuilder instance) where > it's installed libhdf5-serial-1.8.4 and libhdf5-serial-dev. After the upgrade > to > wheezy, libhdf5-7 from Wheezy is installed while libhdf5-serial-1.8.4 from > Squeeze is kept and the -dev package has been removed: > > # dpkg -l | grep hdf5 > ii hdf5-helpers1.8.8-9.1 amd64 Hierarchical > Data Format 5 (HDF5) - Helper tools > ii libhdf5-7 1.8.8-9.1 amd64 Hierarchical > Data Format 5 (HDF5) - runtime files - serial version > ii libhdf5-serial-1.8.41.8.4-patch1-2amd64 Hierarchical > Data Format 5 (HDF5) - runtime files - serial version Starting 2 Investigating (0) libhdf5-dev [ amd64 ] < none -> 1.8.8-9.0anbe1piuparts1hdf5.8 > ( libdevel ) Broken libhdf5-dev:amd64 Conflicts on libjpeg62-dev [ amd64 ] < 6b1-1 -> 6b1-3 > ( oldlibs ) Considering libjpeg62-dev:amd64 0 as a solution to libhdf5-dev:amd64 0 Holding Back libhdf5-dev:amd64 rather than change libjpeg62-dev:amd64 Investigating (0) libhdf5-serial-dev [ amd64 ] < 1.8.4-patch1-2 -> 1.8.8-9.0anbe1piuparts1hdf5.8 > ( libdevel ) Broken libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 Depends on libhdf5-dev [ amd64 ] < none -> 1.8.8-9.0anbe1piuparts1hdf5.8 > ( libdevel ) (= 1.8.8-9.0anbe1piuparts1hdf5.8) Considering libhdf5-dev:amd64 0 as a solution to libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 0 Holding Back libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 rather than change libhdf5-dev:amd64 Investigating (0) libjpeg8-dev [ amd64 ] < none -> 8d-1 > ( libdevel ) Broken libjpeg8-dev:amd64 Conflicts on libjpeg62-dev [ amd64 ] < 6b1-1 -> 6b1-3 > ( oldlibs ) Considering libjpeg62-dev:amd64 0 as a solution to libjpeg8-dev:amd64 -1 Holding Back libjpeg8-dev:amd64 rather than change libjpeg62-dev:amd64 Try to Re-Instate (1) libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 Investigating (1) libhdf5-serial-dev [ amd64 ] < 1.8.4-patch1-2 -> 1.8.8-9.0anbe1piuparts1hdf5.8 > ( libdevel ) Broken libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 Depends on libjpeg-dev [ amd64 ] < none > ( none ) Considering libjpeg62-dev:amd64 0 as a solution to libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 0 Removing libhdf5-serial-dev:amd64 rather than change libjpeg-dev:amd64 Done There is a tie in the scoring between libjpeg62-dev and libhdf5-dev, probably due to apt bug #699759, and apt breaks it in favor of the wrong package :-( Try adding Conflicts: libjpeg62-dev to libhdf5-serial-dev Try adding Conflicts: libjpeg62-dev (<< 6b1-2) to libhdf5-7 and friends but I'm afarid that won't help, as the scores are too low the upgrade will probably work with not entirely minimal installations The libjpeg-dev transition is a nasty thing to solve for apt ... finally filed a bug about this (#701808) for an "easy" case not involving hdf5. Ideally hdf5 should not need to any Conflicts: libjpeg62-dev or similar. > B) Minimal installation of Squeeze where it's installed > libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 and r-cran-hdf5. After the upgrade to Wheezy, > libhdf5-7 from Wheezy is installed (the serial version) while > hdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 from Squeeze is kept. r-cran-hdf5 is updated fine. > > > # dpkg -l | grep hdf5 > ii libhdf5-7 1.8.8-9.1 amd64 > Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) - runtime files - serial version > ii libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 1.8.4-patch1-2 amd64 > Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) - runtime files - OpenMPI version > ii r-cran-hdf5 1.6.10-1+b1 amd64GNU > R package interfacing the NCSA HDF5 library Confirmed, but I'm afraid, this is a correct solution. There is nothing that hints apt that the upgrade path of libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 should be libhdf5-openmpi-7. You are switching from a set of packages that provide virtual:libhdf5-1.8.4 (or so) to another set of packages providing virtual:libhdf5-7 (with probably a preference of real:libhdf5-7 with no other indicators). Having real metapackages libhdf5-serial, libhdf5-openmpi, libhdf5-mpich2 that depend on their corresponding libhdf5-foo (=$binvers) (and the libraries recommend these variant-metapackages vice versa) could be a possible path for the future to keep the hdf5 variant over soname changes. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On 25/02/2013 11:44, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Followup-For: Bug #667599 > Control: tag -1 patch > > Hi, > > after having tested a lot of modifications, I think I found a solution > that provides smoother hdf5 upgrade paths from squeeze. > > As that is primarily an apt bug in squeeze, we need to work around it > somehow. > > I'm not sure if this also solves the issue switching from mpi to serial > variant during upgrades. Excellent. Many thanks. Ana is currently testing your fix. I upload it as soon as I have her go! Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
Followup-For: Bug #667599
Control: tag -1 patch
Hi,
after having tested a lot of modifications, I think I found a solution
that provides smoother hdf5 upgrade paths from squeeze.
As that is primarily an apt bug in squeeze, we need to work around it
somehow.
I'm not sure if this also solves the issue switching from mpi to serial
variant during upgrades.
Andreas
diffstat for hdf5-1.8.8 hdf5-1.8.8
changelog | 21 +
control| 43 ---
control.in | 43 ---
3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff -Nru hdf5-1.8.8/debian/changelog hdf5-1.8.8/debian/changelog
--- hdf5-1.8.8/debian/changelog 2012-03-08 11:09:55.0 +0100
+++ hdf5-1.8.8/debian/changelog 2013-02-25 11:26:57.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,24 @@
+hdf5 (1.8.8-9.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Remove unneded Conflicts/Replaces/Provides to help apt finding a proper
+upgrade path. Suggested by Margarita Manterola. (Closes: #667599)
+- Drop Conflicts/Provides: libhdf5-@MAJOR_VERSION@.
+- Drop Conflicts/Replaces: libhdf5-1.8.4, libhdf5-*-1.8.4. The library
+ packages from squeeze are co-installable without file conflicts.
+ * libhdf5{,-mpich2,-openmpi}-7: Add Breaks: libnetcdf6 (<< 1:4.1.1-7~) to
+ease upgrades from squeeze. Apt (the squeeze version) may assign
+priorities that cause a precedence of libhdf5-7 > libnetcdf6 > libnetcdfc7
+resulting in netcdf not being upgraded in some upgrade paths.
+ * libhdf5{,-mpich2,-openmpi}-dev: Add unversioned Conflicts: libjpeg62-dev
+to "fix" the libjpeg-dev transition on some upgrade paths by preventing
+apt from holding back libjpeg62-dev/squeeze (to satisfy Depends:
+libjpeg-dev) instead of installing libjpeg8-dev/wheezy and removing
+libjpeg62-dev. Versioned Breaks/Conflicts did not achieve this, causing
+the hdf5 stack not being upgraded in some cases.
+
+ -- Andreas Beckmann Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:26:57 +0100
+
hdf5 (1.8.8-9) unstable; urgency=low
* Force the dependency on the serpack for hdf5-tools & hdf5-helpers.
diff -Nru hdf5-1.8.8/debian/control hdf5-1.8.8/debian/control
--- hdf5-1.8.8/debian/control 2012-03-08 11:18:22.0 +0100
+++ hdf5-1.8.8/debian/control 2013-02-25 11:29:07.0 +0100
@@ -17,11 +17,15 @@
Section: libs
Architecture: any
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
-Conflicts: libhdf5-7, libhdf5-1.8,
- libhdf5-1.8.4, libhdf5-serial-1.8.4, libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-serial-1.8.6,
+Conflicts: libhdf5-7,
+ libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-serial-1.8.6,
libhdf5-1.8.7, libhdf5-serial-1.8.7
-Provides: libhdf5-7, libhdf5-1.8
-Replaces: libhdf5-1.8.4, libhdf5-serial-1.8.4, libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-serial-1.8.6, libhdf5-1.8.7, libhdf5-serial-1.8.7
+Provides: libhdf5-7,
+Replaces:
+ libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-serial-1.8.6,
+ libhdf5-1.8.7, libhdf5-serial-1.8.7
+Breaks:
+ libnetcdf6 (<< 1:4.1.1-7~),
Description: Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) - runtime files - serial version
HDF5 is a file format and library for storing scientific data.
HDF5 was designed and implemented to address the deficiencies of
@@ -52,7 +56,8 @@
Suggests: libhdf5-doc
Provides: libhdf5-serial-dev
Replaces: libhdf5-serial-dev (<< 1.8.8-2)
-Conflicts: libhdf5-serial-dev (<< 1.8.8-2)
+Conflicts: libhdf5-serial-dev (<< 1.8.8-2),
+ libjpeg62-dev,
Description: Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) - development files - serial version
HDF5 is a file format and library for storing scientific data.
HDF5 was designed and implemented to address the deficiencies of
@@ -78,12 +83,15 @@
Priority: extra
Architecture: alpha armel armhf amd64 i386 ia64 powerpc sparc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 hurd-i386
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
-Conflicts: libhdf5-7, libhdf5-1.8,
- libhdf5-1.8.4, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4, libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.6,
+Conflicts: libhdf5-7,
+ libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.6,
libhdf5-1.8.7, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.7
-Provides: libhdf5-7, libhdf5-1.8
-Replaces: libhdf5-1.8.4, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4, libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.6,
+Provides: libhdf5-7,
+Replaces:
+ libhdf5-1.8.6, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.6,
libhdf5-1.8.7, libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.7
+Breaks:
+ libnetcdf6 (<< 1:4.1.1-7~),
Description: Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) - runtime files - OpenMPI version
HDF5 is a file format and library for storing scientific data.
HDF5 was designed and implemented to address the deficiencies of
@@ -98,7 +106,8 @@
Architecture: alpha armel armhf amd64 i386 ia64 powerpc sparc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 hurd-i386
Depends: libhdf5-openmpi-7 (= ${binary:Version}), zlib1g-dev,
libjpeg-dev, libopenmpi-dev, ${misc:Depends}, hdf5-helpers
-Conflicts: libhdf5-dev
+Conflicts: libhdf5-dev,
+ libjpeg62-dev,
Provides: libhdf5-dev
Suggests: libhdf5-doc
Description: Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) - development files - OpenMPI version
@@ -128,12 +137,15 @@
Priority: extra
Archi
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
Hi, I've been investigating the hdf5 package dependencies issues for the past hours. I've found that removing conflict+provides+replaces on every -1.8 version allows the packages that depend on libhdf5 to be upgraded, but in this case libhdf5-*-dev is held back, because of a similar conflict in libjpeg. I consider that removing the conflict+provides+replaces is both harmless and the correct thing to do. The contents of the packages are totally different, and it would be possible for two packages to be used with both libraries at the same time without a problem. Contents of libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4: /. /usr /usr/lib /usr/lib/libhdf5.so.6.0.3 /usr/lib/libhdf5_hl.so.6.0.3 /usr/lib/libhdf5hl_fortran.so.6.0.3 /usr/lib/libhdf5_fortran.so.6.0.3 /usr/share /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/HISTORY-1_8.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/README.Debian /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/HISTORY-1_0-1_8_0_rc3.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/copyright /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/changelog.Debian.gz /usr/lib/libhdf5.so.6 /usr/lib/libhdf5hl_fortran.so.6 /usr/lib/libhdf5_fortran.so.6 /usr/lib/libhdf5_hl.so.6 /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4/RELEASE.txt.gz Contents of libhdf5-openmpi-7: /. /usr /usr/share /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7 /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7/HISTORY-1_0-1_8_0_rc3.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7/HISTORY-1_8.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7/copyright /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7/changelog.Debian.gz /usr/lib /usr/lib/libhdf5hl_fortran.so.7.0.2 /usr/lib/libhdf5_hl.so.7.0.2 /usr/lib/libhdf5_fortran.so.7.0.2 /usr/lib/libhdf5.so.7.0.2 /usr/share/doc/libhdf5-openmpi-7/RELEASE.txt.gz /usr/lib/libhdf5_hl.so.7 /usr/lib/libhdf5.so.7 /usr/lib/libhdf5_fortran.so.7 /usr/lib/libhdf5hl_fortran.so.7 After removing the conflict+provides+replaces, petsc-dev (one of the depending packages affected by this problem) could be upgraded without problems; however, libhdf5-openmpi-dev was still kept back, because of this: libhdf5-openmpi-dev: Depends: libjpeg-dev libjpeg8-dev: Conflicts: libjpeg62-dev but 6b1-3 is to be installed Detailed analysis: libhdf5-openmpi-dev 1.8.4-patch1-2 depends on libjpeg62-dev libhdf5-openmpi-dev 1.8.8-9 depends on libjpeg-dev libjpeg62-dev 6b1-1 provides libjpeg-dev libjpeg62-dev 6b1-3 doesn't provide libjpeg-dev libjpeg8-dev 8d-1 provides libjpeg-dev and conflicts with libjpeg62-dev The only way that I found to resolve the conflict was to manually remove libjpeg62-dev. After that, everything could be upgraded properly. I don't understand why apt doesn't decide to do this when doing dist-upgrade. I can't figure out why apt is not dropping the conflicting package and preferring the upgrade, instead of just holding the packages back. aptitude decides better in this case, going for the upgrade of the right packages and the removal of the obsolete ones, although it also tries to remove totally harmless and unrelated x11-common. At this point I'm unsure as to how to proceed. I'm attaching here the debdiff of the packages I modified. For testing purposes, compiled packages, with the corresponding Packages.gz file can be found at: deb http://marga.com.ar/debian/packages/hdf5 ./ -- Regards, Marga hdf5.diff Description: Binary data
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 3:10 AM, David Kalnischkies wrote: > In bug #667599 we have a report from piuparts that APT is unable to > upgrade delfin-dev from squeeze to wheezy. > > The problem is that APT has to decide in this process if it wants to > have libhdf5-1.8 (= libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4) or libhdf5-openmpi-7 > installed and finally decides against libhdf5-openmpi-7. > > Removing conflict(+provides+replaces) for libhdf5-1.8, libhdf5-1.8.4 > and libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 obviously prevents APT from having to > decide between the two, so you might guess what i want to ask: > Could you hint me at why these conflicts are in place? > > A quick check regarding the filelist suggests that the "old"-style 1.8.* > versions provided a libhdf5.so.6 library while the new one provides > libhdf5.so.7 so I wonder if these Provides are correct at all. > At least there seem to be no file conflicts between those packages or > did I miss the obvious? > > (leaving assigned to dolfin as this is just a guess) I think this bug should be reassigned to hdf5. FWICT, the reason we are seeing this problem with dolfin-dev is because it depends on petsc, which again depends on hdf5. First, I tried to do the same upgrade from squeeze to wheezy with petsc-dev instead of dolfin-dev and I ran into the same problem as with dolfin-dev: The following packages will be REMOVED: libept1 libpetsc3.1 libpetsc3.1-dev petsc-dev Now, petsc-dev (or actually libpetsc3.2-dev) depends on libhdf5-mpi-dev and I did the same upgrade with this package, resulting in: The following packages will be REMOVED: libept1 libhdf5-mpi-dev libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 libhdf5-openmpi-dev libjpeg62-dev Let me quote the initial message in this bug report: "Ouch! apt shouldn't remove the package that is to be tested (and can be installed in clean wheezy without problems)." There are also similar problems with most (if not all) of the packages that rdepends on libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 in squeeze. So, can can this bug be reassigned to hdf5? Best regards, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 03:10:19 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Hello hdf5-maintainers! > > > In bug #667599 we have a report from piuparts that APT is unable to > upgrade delfin-dev from squeeze to wheezy. > > The problem is that APT has to decide in this process if it wants to > have libhdf5-1.8 (= libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4) or libhdf5-openmpi-7 > installed and finally decides against libhdf5-openmpi-7. > > Removing conflict(+provides+replaces) for libhdf5-1.8, libhdf5-1.8.4 > and libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 obviously prevents APT from having to > decide between the two, so you might guess what i want to ask: > Could you hint me at why these conflicts are in place? > > A quick check regarding the filelist suggests that the "old"-style 1.8.* > versions provided a libhdf5.so.6 library while the new one provides > libhdf5.so.7 so I wonder if these Provides are correct at all. > At least there seem to be no file conflicts between those packages or > did I miss the obvious? > libhdf5-openmpi-7 doesn't provide the 1.8.4 version right now, I think that got fixed a while back (it has Provides: libhdf5-1.8, which AFAIK is meaningless, but that shouldn't harm). The conflicts/replaces could most likely be removed if there's no contents overlap. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
Hello hdf5-maintainers! In bug #667599 we have a report from piuparts that APT is unable to upgrade delfin-dev from squeeze to wheezy. The problem is that APT has to decide in this process if it wants to have libhdf5-1.8 (= libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4) or libhdf5-openmpi-7 installed and finally decides against libhdf5-openmpi-7. Removing conflict(+provides+replaces) for libhdf5-1.8, libhdf5-1.8.4 and libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 obviously prevents APT from having to decide between the two, so you might guess what i want to ask: Could you hint me at why these conflicts are in place? A quick check regarding the filelist suggests that the "old"-style 1.8.* versions provided a libhdf5.so.6 library while the new one provides libhdf5.so.7 so I wonder if these Provides are correct at all. At least there seem to be no file conflicts between those packages or did I miss the obvious? (leaving assigned to dolfin as this is just a guess) Thanks in advance and best regards David Kalnischkies P.S.: I am not subscribed to this bug, so please CC me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#662746: Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
As it is to be expected, the two bugreports are completely unrelated, but as the comment request goes to both lets answer to both… Let me start that it would be helpful if package maintainers would at least try to understand why apt does what it does instead of crying instantly for a bug. It's completely impossible for us to debug dependencies of more than 20k sourcepackages - especially if you don't have the field knowledge in that area. aka: We are a "crisis helpline", not an "information desk"… And while it might be possible to upgrade apt in stable its a last resort action we haven't used in at least the last two releases - mostly because there are not that many bugs in apt if the dependencies are well-formed and correct… (and yes, both of these bugs don't look like apt bugs…). On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 17:38, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > On 0, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Followed steps to reproduce: > #0. cowbuilder-squeeze --login > #1. apt-get install --no-install-recommends dolfin-dev > #2. sed -i s/stable/wheezy/ /etc/apt/sources.list > #3. apt-get update > #4. note that `apt-get dis-upgrade` fails > #5. and that `aptitude full-upgrade` works Looking at the debug output of APT ( -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=1 ) we can see that APT decides to keep libhdf5-1.8 (or: libhdf5-openmpi-1.8.4 which provides this) back instead of following the request from libhdf5-openmpi-7 to remove it. So (transitive) dependencies of dolfin-dev end up being uninstallable. I guess somewhere in this libhdf5* namespace someone tries to forcefully cleanup after a package rename - which bits him back, but given the confusing naming i will leave that to find for someone who is more awake than I am currently. My latest rambling regarding renames can be found in this thread [0]. In short: Transitional packages are your friend, conflicts are not… [0] https://lists.debian.org/deity/2012/03/msg00131.html Unrelated to the bug itself, but same category: The Provides of libdolfin0-dev from libdolfin1.0-dev is useless. As §7.5 defines versioned dependencies on Provides aren't allowed so this has basically no effect as squeeze has only packages with versioned dependencies on it. Using replaces+breaks (if at all) is more than enough and less demanding for the installation order. For mingw32-ocaml the reason is: binutils-mingw-w64-i686 Conflicts on mingw32-binutils The naming is again to confusing for me now to inspect it deeper now, but i guess the "transition" from mingw32 to mingw64 is messed up. Especially as both are still around in wheezy deciding seems hard. aptitude chooses in both cases in these specific situations a different way. But this can change anytime as conflict resolution is hard to predict if you don't know exactly how the underlying system looks like. I wouldn't go as far as saying that these are desired solutions btw - looking at some of the removes more a pick your poison solution… Best regards David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#667599: Bug#662746: Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On 04/05/2012 09:00 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 17:38:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > >> On 0, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >>> >>> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to >>> upgrade from 'squeeze'. It installed fine in 'squeeze', then the >>> upgrade to 'wheezy' fails. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> Ouch! apt shouldn't remove the package that is to be tested (and >>> can be installed in clean wheezy without problems). >>> >> >> Exactly, *APT* should not do that... why is this reported against >> dolfin? I tried to reproduce this bug with aptitude instead of >> apt, and it seems that aptitude is a bit smarter than apt as it >> doesn't remove dolfin-dev but offers to upgrade it to the newer >> version. >> >> IMO, this bug should be reassigned to APT. It also happens with >> mingw-ocaml (see #662746). I'm CC'ing APT maintainers to have their >> input on this kind of issues. >> > NAK. Packages in wheezy need to upgrade cleanly within the > constraints of squeeze's apt. > Can you please tell me where did you read that? Besides, it is always good to understand why APT is doing it wrong and we can still update apt in squeeze if it has a bug (it is not like we didn't do this sort of things in the past). Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#662746: Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 17:38:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > On 0, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > > >during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade > >from 'squeeze'. It installed fine in 'squeeze', then the upgrade to > >'wheezy' fails. > > > >[snip] > > > >Ouch! apt shouldn't remove the package that is to be tested (and can > >be installed in clean wheezy without problems). > > > > Exactly, *APT* should not do that... why is this reported against > dolfin? I tried to reproduce this bug with aptitude instead of apt, > and it seems that aptitude is a bit smarter than apt as it doesn't > remove dolfin-dev but offers to upgrade it to the newer version. > > IMO, this bug should be reassigned to APT. It also happens with > mingw-ocaml (see #662746). I'm CC'ing APT maintainers to have their > input on this kind of issues. > NAK. Packages in wheezy need to upgrade cleanly within the constraints of squeeze's apt. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
On 0, Andreas Beckmann wrote: during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from 'squeeze'. It installed fine in 'squeeze', then the upgrade to 'wheezy' fails. [snip] Ouch! apt shouldn't remove the package that is to be tested (and can be installed in clean wheezy without problems). Exactly, *APT* should not do that... why is this reported against dolfin? I tried to reproduce this bug with aptitude instead of apt, and it seems that aptitude is a bit smarter than apt as it doesn't remove dolfin-dev but offers to upgrade it to the newer version. IMO, this bug should be reassigned to APT. It also happens with mingw-ocaml (see #662746). I'm CC'ing APT maintainers to have their input on this kind of issues. Followed steps to reproduce: #0. cowbuilder-squeeze --login #1. apt-get install --no-install-recommends dolfin-dev #2. sed -i s/stable/wheezy/ /etc/apt/sources.list #3. apt-get update #4. note that `apt-get dis-upgrade` fails #5. and that `aptitude full-upgrade` works Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#667599: dolfin-dev: fails to upgrade from squeeze - apt does not find an upgrade path
Package: dolfin-dev Version: 1.0.0-4 Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from 'squeeze'. It installed fine in 'squeeze', then the upgrade to 'wheezy' fails. >From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...): 5m43.3s DEBUG: Starting command: ['chroot', '/tmp/piupartss/tmp7TWhoJ', 'apt-get', '-yf', 'dist-upgrade'] 12m24.2s DUMP: Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... The following packages will be REMOVED: dolfin-dev libboost-filesystem1.42-dev libboost-program-options1.42-dev libboost-serialization1.42-dev libboost-system1.42-dev libboost1.42-dev libdolfin0 libdolfin0-dev libnetcdf6 python-netcdf python-viper python-vtk Ouch! apt shouldn't remove the package that is to be tested (and can be installed in clean wheezy without problems). The test performed is: * setup a minimal squeeze chroot (without Recommends) * install dolfin-dev * dist-upgrade to wheezy cheers, Andreas dolfin-dev_1.0.0-4.log.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data
