Your message dated Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:55:34 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#669253: roaraudio conflicts with muroard
has caused the Debian Bug report #669253,
regarding roaraudio conflicts with muroard
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
669253: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=669253
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: roaraudio
Version: 1.0~beta0-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I had muroard installed on my system for some reason, and then roaraudio got
installed as a dependency. The post-install failed, without any error message.
I ran the actual daemon command line that is in /etc/init.d/roaraudio by hand,
but with "--daemon" and not using syslog, and it reported "port already in
use".
I removed the muroard package, and roaraudio was able to complete post-
installation.
I think a conflict between these two packages needs to be defined.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-686-pae (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages roaraudio depends on:
ii libao4 1.1.0-1.1+b1
ii libasound2 1.0.25-2
ii libc6 2.13-27
ii libcelt0-0 0.7.1-1
ii libesd0 0.2.41-10+b1
ii libfishsound1 1.0.0-1
ii libflac8 1.2.1-6
ii libogg0 1.2.2~dfsg-1
ii liboggz2 1.1.1-1
ii libportaudio2 19+svn20111121-1
ii libpulse0 1.1-3+b1
ii libroar-compat2 1.0~beta0-1
ii libroar2 1.0~beta0-1
ii libshout3 2.2.2-8
ii libslp1 1.2.1-9
ii libsndfile1 1.0.25-4
ii libspeex1 1.2~rc1-3
ii libspeexdsp1 1.2~rc1-3
ii libvorbis0a 1.3.2-1.1
ii libvorbisenc2 1.3.2-1.1
ii libvorbisfile3 1.3.2-1.1
Versions of packages roaraudio recommends:
ii oss-compat 2
Versions of packages roaraudio suggests:
ii socat 1.7.1.3-1.2
ii wget 1.13.4-2
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
flum,
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 11:50 +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> Am 18.04.2012 14:59, schrieb Shane Kerr:
> > I had muroard installed on my system for some reason, and then roaraudio got
> > installed as a dependency. The post-install failed, without any error
> > message.
> >
> > I ran the actual daemon command line that is in /etc/init.d/roaraudio by
> > hand,
> > but with "--daemon" and not using syslog, and it reported "port already in
> > use".
> >
> > I removed the muroard package, and roaraudio was able to complete post-
> > installation.
> >
> > I think a conflict between these two packages needs to be defined.
Thanks for taking the time to report this.
In fact this is not a bug in the package more a configuration conflict.
Both packages contain a server binary and try to open the same socket
(They should not try to use a IP socket so there is no 'port' allocated
here, but that is another story).
By default both servers try to open a socket at a standard address. When
both try to use the same it will conflict. But which sockets they will
use can be configured. Adding a conflict in the package wouldn't be
right as both packages can co-exist on the same system and be part of a
perfectly valid and usefull setup.
Think of two webservers installed on the same system. Both my try per
default to use port 80 and conflict in default configuration. Still it
may be useful to have both installed (one for production and a smaller
one for testing for example).
The interesting question in your case is why pkg:roaraudio was installed
as dependency. Maybe you can find out which package depends on it in
your setup? Maybe it is a bug in another package.
The pkg:roaraudio currently contains both server (started by default)
and client applications. This seems to be not that wise. I already spoke
with Patrick Matthäi about splitting the package. Maybe this can be done
with the next upload. I guess this will make such a conflict less
likely. Still I don't see how to fully prevent this without breaking
other stuff.
If you think I'm wrong in some point please just comment or reopen. :)
PS: About which addresses are used there is a wiki article at
http://bts.keep-cool.org/wiki/ServerAddress (just in case of some
understanding problems).
--
Philipp.
(Rah of PH2)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---
