Bug#680613: libav: Multi-Arch: foreign libraries

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Stepan Golosunov <stepan at golosunov.pp.ru> wrote:
> 07.07.2012 в 18:30:49 +0200 Reinhard Tartler написал:
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Stepan Golosunov <stepan at golosunov.pp.ru> wrote:
>> > 07.07.2012 в 11:57:47 +0200 Reinhard Tartler написал:
>> >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Stepan Golosunov
>> >> <stepan at golosunov.pp.ru> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > libavutil-extra-51, libavdevice-extra-53, libavfilter-extra-2,
>> >> > libpostproc-extra-52, libavformat-extra-53 and libswscale-extra-2 are
>> >> > Multi-Arch: foreign transitional packages.
>> >> >
>> >> > This allows the packages to satisfy dependencies of
>> >> > foreign-architecture packages while providing only libraries for
>> >> > a native architecture, which is obviously incorrect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Transitional library packages should be Multi-Arch: same (but that
>> >> > would require making them Architecture: any). I guess these packages
>> >> > should just be removed, as the only non-transitional versions of the
>> >> > packages still existing in Debian are uninstallable 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1
>> >> > packages in backports and obsolete 4:0.7.2.1+b1 armhf on debports.
>> >>
>> >> Well, AFAIUI this is a good reason to defer this for after wheezy
>> >> release. Is there anything we can do about this issue for wheezy?
>> >
>> > What's "this"? Existence of the packages in backports?
>> > They became uninstallable when libav 0.8 was uploaded to backports
>> > months ago. (In any case, libav-extra source package probably needs
>> > be removed from backports.)
>>
>> Yes, AFAIUI such removals happen on a regular basis without needing to
>> file a bug.
>
> But libav-extra still hasn't been removed despite being uninstallable
> for months.

I've cc'ed the backports team. Dear backport maintainers, can you have
a look what's going on here?

>
>> BTW, libavformat-extra-53 from bpo is perfectly installable for me.
>> Can you elaborate why they are not for you?
>
> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libavformat-extra-53
>
> There are two versions of libavformat-extra-53 in backports. One from
> libav-extra and one from libav. The first one is uninstallable as
> there is only one version of libavcodec-extra-53. The second one is
> a transitional package. (The obsolete libavformat-extra-53 probably
> still exists because the transitional one is Architecture: all.)

err, the first one is superseeded by the one built from the source
package 'libav'. It is uninstallable because the newer packages has a
higher version number. Can you please explain the problem again?

> % zgrep -A10 'Package: libavformat-extra-53' Packages.gz
> Package: libavformat-extra-53
> Priority: optional
> Section: libs
> Installed-Size: 2108
> Maintainer: Debian multimedia packages maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Architecture: i386
> Source: libav-extra
> Version: 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1
> Replaces: libavformat53
> Depends: libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1), libavcodec-extra-53 (<< 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1-99), libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1), libavutil-extra-51 (<< 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1-99), libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.7), librtmp0 (>= 2.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
> Conflicts: libavformat53

That's the superseeded one and should get removed.

> --
> Package: libavformat-extra-53
> Priority: optional
> Section: libs
> Installed-Size: 68
> Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Architecture: all
> Source: libav
> Version: 6:0.8.3-1~bpo60+1
> Depends: libavformat53
> Filename: pool/main/liba/libav/libavformat-extra-53_0.8.3-1~bpo60+1_all.deb
> Size: 40658

I cannot testify an installation problem with this package.

>> > If the transitional packages are to stay, the correct way to proceed
>> > is either to change them to Multi-Arch: same, Architecture: any or to
>> > remove their Multi-Arch headers.
>>
>> Err, they (i.e., all but libavcodec-extra-53, and that's critical) are
>> already Arch: all, with Multi-arch: foreign. Do I understand you
>> correctly that they should rather by Multi-arch: same?
>
> Yes. Now in testing apt-get allows installing, for example,
> minidlna:amd64 on a system with i386 dpkg without installing
> libavformat53:amd64, as the
> Depends: libavformat53 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavformat-extra-53 (>= 4:0.8-1~)
> is satisfiable by libavformat-extra-53:all and libavformat53:i386
> combination.

To recap, what's the problem now?




-- 
regards,
    Reinhard