Hi! On 2018-03-10 at 16:35 (+0100), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
[...] >> while vips on some weird missing dependencies where openexr is not >> involved, it seems. > > Can you file a bug for this? Gonna do it asap. > BTW I see in your changelog: > > openexr (2.2.1-2) experimental; urgency=medium > > * debian/: SONAME bump 22 -> 23 > * debian/control: add Breaks and Replaces for library replacement > > So IIUC, you upgraded 2.2.1-1, which bumped the SONAME, without bumping the > binary package name. Then you uploaded 2.2.1-2 with updated package name for > the > bumped SONAME. However since both libopenexr22_2.2.1-1 and > libopenexr23_2.2.1-2 > ship libopenexr.so.23, you had to add some Breaks/Replaces. But you added: > > Package: libopenexr23 > Version: 2.2.1-2 > Replaces: libopenexr22 (<< 2.2.1-2) > Breaks: libopenexr22 (<< 2.2.1-2) > > That's unnecessarily broad, as it breaks against libopenexr22_2.2.0-11.1 that > we > have in testing, when it shouldn't. That will cause pain during the > transition. > Can you instead update the Breaks/Replaces to something like > > libopenexr22 (= 2.2.1-1) > > or > > libopenexr22 (>= 2.2.1) > > That should still conflict against the bad versions but not against the good > ones. > > Basically if you can install libopenexr22/testing with libopenexr23, then > we're > good to go. That's what I've done now: I've just uploaded -3 revision that fixes the Breaks/Replaces with the first option you provided. And I've tested the co-installability of libopenexr22 from testing and libopenexr23 from experimental. Cheers. -- Matteo F. Vescovi || Debian Developer GnuPG KeyID: 4096R/0x8062398983B2CF7A
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
