Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 12/11/2012 08:56 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 11.12.2012 14:44, schrieb The Wanderer: And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the bug report is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fix my own package-install situation manually and proceed from there, if no one has any further suggestions for how to proceed. You could try aptitude why libjack-jackd2-0 to find out what caused the installation of that package and thus the removal of libjack0. Unfortunately, that just reports p libjack-jackd2-dev Provides libjack-dev p libjack-jackd2-dev Depends libjack-jackd2-0 (= 1.9.8~dfsg.4+20120529git007c dc37-4.1) which doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I played around with why and why-not for a few other packages as well, but didn't succeed in tracking anything down. (I wasn't aware of these commands, and I think they may be useful for future reference.) It seems possible that this might change if I actually go through with the remove libjack0 and libjack-dev dist-upgrade, so that the jackd2 packages are actually installed (and the jackd1 packages are not) - but so far I haven't done that, and I'm not sure I'd like to. I tried to reproduce this on a clean chroot: 1. Create squeeze chroot 2. Install libjack-dev, jackd and jack1 3. install ia32-libs 4. Add wheezy to sources.list 5. Upgrade apt and dpkg (needed for multiarch) 6. Add i386 foreign architecture in dpkg and apt-get update again 7. apt-get dist-upgrade This caused a lot of installs (including a :i386 flurry), but libjack-dev was not removed, and libjack-jack2-0 was not installed. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/14/2012 05:59 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 12/11/2012 08:56 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: You could try aptitude why libjack-jackd2-0 to find out what caused the installation of that package and thus the removal of libjack0. Unfortunately, that just reports p libjack-jackd2-dev Provides libjack-dev p libjack-jackd2-dev Depends libjack-jackd2-0 (= 1.9.8~dfsg.4+20120529git007c dc37-4.1) which doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I played around with why and why-not for a few other packages as well, but didn't succeed in tracking anything down. (I wasn't aware of these commands, and I think they may be useful for future reference.) It seems possible that this might change if I actually go through with the remove libjack0 and libjack-dev dist-upgrade, so that the jackd2 packages are actually installed (and the jackd1 packages are not) - but so far I haven't done that, and I'm not sure I'd like to. I tried to reproduce this on a clean chroot: 1. Create squeeze chroot 2. Install libjack-dev, jackd and jack1 3. install ia32-libs 4. Add wheezy to sources.list 5. Upgrade apt and dpkg (needed for multiarch) 6. Add i386 foreign architecture in dpkg and apt-get update again 7. apt-get dist-upgrade This caused a lot of installs (including a :i386 flurry), but libjack-dev was not removed, and libjack-jack2-0 was not installed. Well, I have encountered the same problem on a second system (a laptop, configured similarly although not identically to the original report's desktop machine), so at least it's not a pure one-off situation. I don't have any further ideas about how to track down the cause, however, and although I do have a squeeze-based VM explicitly for testing things related to Debian I'm not likely to have time to experiment much with this anytime soon. For the time being, I've gone ahead and dodged around the problem (on one of the two affected systems) by dist-upgrading with jackd1 and libjack-dev held. Whether there will be problems with future dist-upgrades I don't know. FWIW, I've checked the dependencies of every package in that dist-upgrade via 'apt-cache show', and the only references to jack are in the package description (not the actual dependencies) of vlc-nox. The only packages not modified in that dist-upgrade which would be modified in one without those two holds are the four which would be removed and the four which would be installed: jackd1, jackd1-firewire, libjack-dev, and libjack0 on the one hand, and jackd2, jackd2-firewire, libjack-jackd2-0, and libjack-jackd2-0:i386 on the other. If you want to close this as unreproducible or similar, I wouldn't actively object. It might be worth keeping it open as a low priority just in case something does get discovered, or for discoverability in case someone else has the same problem, but I'm not in a position to make that judgment. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/10/2012 04:59 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18) On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Check the meanings with aptitude --help. On my system, the text output from that command does not include the string 'dist': True. Look at the *upgrade commands. (In hindsight, from what I found in the man page, I should have thought of that myself.) wanderer@apologia$ aptitude --help | grep -i upgr install - Install/upgrade packages. forbid-version - Forbid aptitude from upgrading to a specific package version. update - Download lists of new/upgradable packages. safe-upgrade - Perform a safe upgrade. full-upgrade - Perform an upgrade, possibly installing and removing packages. wanderer@apologia$ That's a reduced and less directly informative version of what's present in the man page, and again, nothing there seems to imply what you described the purpose of dist-upgrade (renamed to full-upgrade) to be. Yes, dist-upgrade can install new packages and remove installed ones; that's sometimes necessary in order to satisfy changing dependencies, e.g. when a program adds a new feature which depends on a new library, or when package names change to reflect new versions. That doesn't say anything about relaxed dependency handling - or, more to the point, more aggressive solutions - as I understand those terms, though. Oh, and if you used apt-get, then don't. Use aptitude! I'd rather not, thanks. I'm told that it's not a good idea to mix-and-match between aptitude and apt-get, and I find the aptitude UI to be palpably less friendly and manageable in most circumstances than that of apt-get. I'm aware that I'm a minority in this, but that doesn't change anything. You are not a minority: Many have been mislead. I meant a minority in the less friendly and manageable opinion. Feel free to use an inferior tool. I disagree that apt-get is inferior. It may not provide as broad a feature set (though I can't swear to that), but IMO as a functional tool it is just as good or better for most purposes. (Or at least for my purposes.) But note that aptitude is the tool recommended for upgrading from one release to the next (nowadays, if it has ever been recommended to use apt-get). I've long been aware that aptitude is by far the more commonly recommended tool of the two, at least for new users; I've had the impression that that recommendation extends to all purposes, not just to cross-release upgrades. As Felipe points out, however, section 4.4 of the wheezy release notes now explicitly states that apt-get is recommended over aptitude for cross-release upgrades. While I'd be interested to continue the discussion of aptitude vs. apt-get, it's certainly offtopic for this bug. As such, I do not (presently) intend to reply to any further posts on this bug on that subject, unless they appear to be going back in the direction of trying to resolve the reported problem. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/11/2012 08:32 AM, The Wanderer wrote: While I'd be interested to continue the discussion of aptitude vs. apt-get, it's certainly offtopic for this bug. As such, I do not (presently) intend to reply to any further posts on this bug on that subject, unless they appear to be going back in the direction of trying to resolve the reported problem. And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the bug report is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fix my own package-install situation manually and proceed from there, if no one has any further suggestions for how to proceed. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Am 11.12.2012 14:44, schrieb The Wanderer: And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the bug report is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fix my own package-install situation manually and proceed from there, if no one has any further suggestions for how to proceed. You could try aptitude why libjack-jackd2-0 to find out what caused the installation of that package and thus the removal of libjack0. - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/11/2012 08:56 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 11.12.2012 14:44, schrieb The Wanderer: And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the bug report is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fix my own package-install situation manually and proceed from there, if no one has any further suggestions for how to proceed. You could try aptitude why libjack-jackd2-0 to find out what caused the installation of that package and thus the removal of libjack0. Unfortunately, that just reports p libjack-jackd2-dev Provides libjack-dev p libjack-jackd2-dev Depends libjack-jackd2-0 (= 1.9.8~dfsg.4+20120529git007c dc37-4.1) which doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I played around with why and why-not for a few other packages as well, but didn't succeed in tracking anything down. (I wasn't aware of these commands, and I think they may be useful for future reference.) It seems possible that this might change if I actually go through with the remove libjack0 and libjack-dev dist-upgrade, so that the jackd2 packages are actually installed (and the jackd1 packages are not) - but so far I haven't done that, and I'm not sure I'd like to. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18) On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19) the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove libjack0. Ohhh: Most likely cause is that libjack-jackd2-dev provides libjack-dev! Why does it do that - it seems plain wrong to me! In combination with what Felipe pointed out about ia32-libs and jackd1, that looks like a plausible reason to me. (The ia32-libs factor also probably means that part of the culprit is the holds I have in place on a few other packages, which are also interfering with parts of the ia32-libs dummy-package transition. As such, this is at least partly my own fault, and may not manifest for everyone.) I don't want to speculate further: Your system contains 32bit libs and held back packages, and (discussed below) you use different tools than those recommended in release notes for your package handling. If you (or someone else) can reproduce this issue from a debootstrap of purely Debian Squeeze packages, then upgraded using an aptitude command, I will gain iterest in this again. I'd guess that whoever set that up was operating on the same mistaken assumptions about the relation of the jack implementations to one another as I was. No (if you mean the assumption of a _transition_ from jackd1 to jackd2 taking place), that is highly unlikely: both JACK implementations are maintained by same people. I thought the purpose of dist-upgrade, as opposed to upgrade, was simply to allow upgrades across scenarios where dependency changes require installation of different packages rather than simply of new versions of the same packages. Check the meanings with aptitude --help. On my system, the text output from that command does not include the string 'dist': True. Look at the *upgrade commands. I bet dist-upgrade was deliberately avoided, in favor of those other more descriptive commands. Oh, and if you used apt-get, then don't. Use aptitude! I'd rather not, thanks. I'm told that it's not a good idea to mix-and-match between aptitude and apt-get, and I find the aptitude UI to be palpably less friendly and manageable in most circumstances than that of apt-get. I'm aware that I'm a minority in this, but that doesn't change anything. You are not a minority: Many have been mislead. Feel free to use an inferior tool. But note that aptitude is the tool recommended for upgrading from one release to the next (nowadays, if it has ever been recommended to use apt-get). Historically apt-get was a too-simple proof-of-concept tool shipped with the APT engine. For many years it was broken (treating recommends as suggests) causing many Debian developers to create broken packages _because_ apt-get was so very popular. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On Dec 10, 2012 7:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18) On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19) the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove libjack0. Ohhh: Most likely cause is that libjack-jackd2-dev provides libjack-dev! Why does it do that - it seems plain wrong to me! In combination with what Felipe pointed out about ia32-libs and jackd1, that looks like a plausible reason to me. (The ia32-libs factor also probably means that part of the culprit is the holds I have in place on a few other packages, which are also interfering with parts of the ia32-libs dummy-package transition. As such, this is at least partly my own fault, and may not manifest for everyone.) I don't want to speculate further: Your system contains 32bit libs and held back packages, and (discussed below) you use different tools than those recommended in release notes for your package handling. In case there is confusion, the above is a supported scenario. Of course,nobody is forced to work on anything they don't want to. If you (or someone else) can reproduce this issue from a debootstrap of purely Debian Squeeze packages, then upgraded using an aptitude command, I will gain iterest in this again. How could this be done? I suspect piuparts could help, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it. You are not a minority: Many have been mislead. Feel free to use an inferior tool. But note that aptitude is the tool recommended for upgrading from one release to the next (nowadays, if it has ever been recommended to use apt-get). For wheezy the recommended tool is apt-get, see http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Quoting Felipe Sateler (2012-12-10 23:18:34) On Dec 10, 2012 7:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard [1]d...@jones.dk wrote: I don't want to speculate further: Your system contains 32bit libs and held back packages, and (discussed below) you use different tools than those recommended in release notes for your package handling. In case there is confusion, the above is a supported scenario. Of course,nobody is forced to work on anything they don't want to. I fully agree. Thanks for clarifying! If you (or someone else) can reproduce this issue from a debootstrap of purely Debian Squeeze packages, then upgraded using an aptitude command, I will gain iterest in this again. How could this be done? I suspect piuparts could help, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it. Should be possible only with debootstrap or cdebootstrap. Might need some juggling with mount --bind ... for /dev, /proc and /sys - especially if you want the aptitude fullscreen interface to work. Simplest networking setup might be to install approx and setup the chroot to use that: saves setting up name resolving and is benecifial anyway for many repeated install and upgrade runs. What I would do is use my pbuilder wrapper scripts localcowbuilder-create and localcowbuilder-login (which essentially creates and uses a debootstrap chroot). If interested, then they are here: git clone git://source.jones.dk/bin Feel free to use an inferior tool. But note that aptitude is the tool recommended for upgrading from one release to the next (nowadays, if it has ever been recommended to use apt-get). For wheezy the recommended tool is apt-get, see [2]http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ Ah, that is great news. More specifically it is here: http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.da.html#upgradingpackages I am quite happy to learn that apt-get has matured! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Hi, Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 02:25:21) When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is part of an intended package transition. As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine. Please modify package dependencies so that a dist-upgrade on a system where libjack-dev is installed will correctly transition to libjack-jackd2-dev. No, because this is not a transition, but two different APIs that (mostly) share same ABI. Which means some packages works fine with either of the JACK libraries but some require the jackd2 one - which then pushes the other out, including the -dev package. Alternately, if this transition would in fact not be correct, please explain to me what the correct procedure - even if a manual one - would be. If you want to develop JACK v1 then avoid installing packages that depend on the JACK v2 extensions to the ABI/API. I believe there is no bug here - but am not sure, so please do not give up just yet :-) Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/10/2012 06:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Hi, Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 02:25:21) When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is part of an intended package transition. As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine. Please modify package dependencies so that a dist-upgrade on a system where libjack-dev is installed will correctly transition to libjack-jackd2-dev. No, because this is not a transition, but two different APIs that (mostly) share same ABI. Which means some packages works fine with either of the JACK libraries but some require the jackd2 one - which then pushes the other out, including the -dev package. By pushes the other out, I infer that you mean causes the other to become uninstalled. (At first glance, I would have expected that phrasing to mean pushes the other onto the system, i.e. causes the other to become installed, which is the opposite of what is actually happening.) Just to clarify: is JACK v2 strictly a superset of JACK v1 in terms of API and presumably ABI? Or are there parts of the JACK v1 API which JACK v2 does not provide? If the former, then I would be inclined to consider this a strict transition/upgrade situation. If the latter, then I find your comment below about the JACK v2 extensions to the ABI/API to be confusing, in that I understand extensions to be simply additions on top of what was already present - as opposed to incompatible modifications. Alternately, if this transition would in fact not be correct, please explain to me what the correct procedure - even if a manual one - would be. If you want to develop JACK v1 then avoid installing packages that depend on the JACK v2 extensions to the ABI/API. Actually, what I want to be able to do is to compile programs which use the JACK libraries. (To me, develop JACK would mean modify the code of JACK itself.) The bug, IMO, is that the dist-upgrade takes me from a situation where this is possible (because the appropriate library and its -dev package are installed) to one where it is not (because although the appropriate library is installed, its -dev package is not). This can be fixed easily enough by manually installing the new matching -dev package, but IMO the fact that that package does not get installed automatically when the older -dev package was already present is a problem. The removal of libjack0 and libjack-dev would prevent me from compiling programs which depend on that API in any case. Assuming it's not possible (or at least not practical) to arrange for both libraries and their headers to be installed side-by-side, which your comments seem to indicate is true, this seems unavoidable. Continuing to provide the matching -dev package would at least let me continue to work with programs which *do* know how to work with either API. Admittedly it would also seem to imply that the APIs provided by the two -dev packages are compatible, which if not accurate is undesirable, but I'm not sure that that's worse than the alternative. I believe there is no bug here - but am not sure, so please do not give up just yet :-) (Thank you for the attitude; I've had far too many hostile or abrupt responses to bug reports which the maintainers considered dubious or invalid. It's nice to get a helpful one instead.) To be clear, I'm not saying there's a functionality problem here. The problem I see is one of user-friendliness and discoverability. It took me several days and a chance comment from someone on debian-user to figure out that there even *was* a replacement -dev package. At first, I had thought that the -dev package simply hadn't been updated to match the newer library package (and the newer binary packages, jackd2 et al.), so I was waiting for an updated version to appear in testing which would not require me to remove the -dev package in order to dist-upgrade; the thought that it might already have been updated, but simply wasn't being installed as part of the dist-upgrade, didn't even occur to me. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 14:41:51) Just to clarify: is JACK v2 strictly a superset of JACK v1 in terms of API and presumably ABI? Or are there parts of the JACK v1 API which JACK v2 does not provide? If the former, then I would be inclined to consider this a strict transition/upgrade situation. If the latter, then I find your comment below about the JACK v2 extensions to the ABI/API to be confusing, in that I understand extensions to be simply additions on top of what was already present - as opposed to incompatible modifications. Ahem, sorry: Please forget about JACK v2. That is the wrong name (my fault!) , and confuses matters! There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those implementations happen to have a 2 in its name. Maybe in the future we will look back and realize than jackd2 became the surviver of those currently in friendly competition, but there is no transition going on currently. I repeat: it is not a transition. There is a common ABI, shared among multiple implementations, and there is development headers which conflict with each other, and there is linkage depending not on the shared ABI but on unique features of one of them. To be clear, I'm not saying there's a functionality problem here. The problem I see is one of user-friendliness and discoverability. You might be right that there is a more elegant way to express the complex situation with these package relations - but first step in helping with that is to understand what are the package relations we try to express ;-) It took me several days and a chance comment from someone on debian-user to figure out that there even *was* a replacement -dev package. Not replacement, but alternative. libjack-dev still exist and should be fully functional. At first, I had thought that the -dev package simply hadn't been updated to match the newer library package (and the newer binary packages, jackd2 et al.), so I was waiting for an updated version to appear in testing which would not require me to remove the -dev package in order to dist-upgrade; the thought that it might already have been updated, but simply wasn't being installed as part of the dist-upgrade, didn't even occur to me. When you have development tools installed, you will not experience as smooth an upgrade as when you do not. The purpose of dist-upgrade (as opposed to upgrade) is to relax dependency handling to permit more aggressive solutions to the complex puzzle of package relation conflicts. - Jonas P.S. Skipping parts of your email does not mean that I find it silly or irrelevant, just that I had no comment on it. We are multiple package developers, and I leave your qustions hanging for others to hopefully contribute too. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: Package: libjack-dev Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is part of an intended package transition. Is this expected to happen? Does anything strictly depend on jack2? As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine. Maybe we should convert libjack-dev to a dummy package like jackd. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 14:41:51) Just to clarify: is JACK v2 strictly a superset of JACK v1 in terms of API and presumably ABI? Or are there parts of the JACK v1 API which JACK v2 does not provide? If the former, then I would be inclined to consider this a strict transition/upgrade situation. If the latter, then I find your comment below about the JACK v2 extensions to the ABI/API to be confusing, in that I understand extensions to be simply additions on top of what was already present - as opposed to incompatible modifications. Ahem, sorry: Please forget about JACK v2. That is the wrong name (my fault!) , and confuses matters! There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those implementations happen to have a 2 in its name. Ah. In that case (and based on a few other things which I've snipped), the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove libjack0. libjack-jackd2-0 conflicts with libjack0, and jackd2 depends on libjack-jackd2-0, so that part is obvious. I've tried to trace dependencies, but I haven't been able to figure out what is causing the dist-upgrade to try to install jackd2. I can prevent dist-upgrade from attempting the removal by holding libjack-dev and jackd1, but that doesn't explain why the attempt was happening in the first place. (No other packages get held back as a result of that hold.) At first, I had thought that the -dev package simply hadn't been updated to match the newer library package (and the newer binary packages, jackd2 et al.), so I was waiting for an updated version to appear in testing which would not require me to remove the -dev package in order to dist-upgrade; the thought that it might already have been updated, but simply wasn't being installed as part of the dist-upgrade, didn't even occur to me. When you have development tools installed, you will not experience as smooth an upgrade as when you do not. That seems less than entirely desirable, but if that's the design intent of the package system, then fair enough. The purpose of dist-upgrade (as opposed to upgrade) is to relax dependency handling to permit more aggressive solutions to the complex puzzle of package relation conflicts. I thought the purpose of dist-upgrade, as opposed to upgrade, was simply to allow upgrades across scenarios where dependency changes require installation of different packages rather than simply of new versions of the same packages. P.S. Skipping parts of your email does not mean that I find it silly or irrelevant, just that I had no comment on it. We are multiple package developers, and I leave your qustions hanging for others to hopefully contribute too. Oh, of course; it didn't even occur to me to potentially be offended. I understand about snipping quite well, even if I don't do it as much as I possibly should myself. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
(Apologies to Felipe for the duplicate reply; I didn't notice until after sending that the To: didn't include the bug address.) On 12/10/2012 10:15 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: Package: libjack-dev Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is part of an intended package transition. Is this expected to happen? Does anything strictly depend on jack2? Not that I've been able to identify so far. As part of this same dist-upgrade, a flood of new lib*:i386 packages are being installed, I think as part of the ia32-libs dummy-package transition. It doesn't seem impossible that one of them is depending on jackd2 or similar, but I haven't been able to identify any which does. Also, if I hold libjack-dev and jackd1, the dist-upgrade no longer attempts to remove them - but the only packages which disappear from the upgrade or the new-install lists are libjack-jackd2-0, libjack-jackd2-0:i386, jackd2, and jackd2-firewire. My only guess is that one of the new packages Recommends: one of the jack2 packages, but I have no idea which one it might be. As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine. Maybe we should convert libjack-dev to a dummy package like jackd. If I understand the problem correctly from what Jonas has explained, that would not seem like an appropriate solution. -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: (Apologies to Felipe for the duplicate reply; I didn't notice until after sending that the To: didn't include the bug address.) On 12/10/2012 10:15 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: Package: libjack-dev Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is part of an intended package transition. Is this expected to happen? Does anything strictly depend on jack2? Not that I've been able to identify so far. As part of this same dist-upgrade, a flood of new lib*:i386 packages are being installed, I think as part of the ia32-libs dummy-package transition. It doesn't seem impossible that one of them is depending on jackd2 or similar, but I haven't been able to identify any which does. Ah, this hints at a clue. However, I'm not quite sure if I'm correct or how can we improve it. I'm going to assume ia32-libs-i386 is attempting an install of version = 1:0.2. Normal upgrades (that is, without ia32-libs) shouldn't have a problem. However, with multiarch we have the following problem: ia32-libs pulls in ia32-libs-i386, which only exists in arch:i386; ia32-libs-i386 depends on libjack-jackd2-0 (= 1.9.5~dfsg-14) | libjack0 (= 1:0.118+svn3796-7) Apt always tries to install the first alternative first, so it tries to install libjack-jack2-0:i386 libjack-jack2-0 in turn Conflicts with libjack0 (in all archs), which causes your libjack0:amd64 to be scheduled for removal, whic in turn causes jackd1 to be removed. I guess you have jackd installed, which causes apt to try to install jackd2 (because jackd1 is being removed), which leaves you with a working jack2 server. The headers are not installed because nothing causes libjack-jack2-dev to be installed, and libjack-dev depends on libjack0 (which is no longer installed). Also, if I hold libjack-dev and jackd1, the dist-upgrade no longer attempts to remove them - but the only packages which disappear from the upgrade or the new-install lists are libjack-jackd2-0, libjack-jackd2-0:i386, jackd2, and jackd2-firewire. This is consistent with the above theory. As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine. Maybe we should convert libjack-dev to a dummy package like jackd. If I understand the problem correctly from what Jonas has explained, that would not seem like an appropriate solution. It could be (but I haven't thought this through). If we: 1. Rename libjack-dev to libjack-jack1-dev. 2. Create a libjack-dev that Depends on libjack-jack1-dev | libjack-jack2-dev Maybe the upgrade now would now keep the headers installed, since after libjack-jack1-dev is marked as not installed, apt would try to install libjack-jack2-dev. I'm not quite sure the above would really work. Thoughts? -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19) On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those implementations happen to have a 2 in its name. In that case (and based on a few other things which I've snipped), the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove libjack0. Looking a bit closer, it might be because...: jackd2 replaces libjack0 (= 1.9.5~dfsg-13) jackd1 replaces libjack0 ( 1:0.118+svn3796-4) Even if perhaps in the end both replace same packages of the whole pile of _updated_ packages, perhaps in the complex puzzle of finding a least aggressive path to get there the one that replaces most of the _old_ packages as well wins. Might also be a factor that jackd1 recommends jackd1-firewire which depends on libjack-jackd2-0 (= 1.9.5~dfsg-14) | libjack-0.116 - i.e. vaguely claims to be compatible with jackd2. Ohhh: Most likely cause is that libjack-jackd2-dev provides libjack-dev! Why does it do that - it seems plain wrong to me! I thought the purpose of dist-upgrade, as opposed to upgrade, was simply to allow upgrades across scenarios where dependency changes require installation of different packages rather than simply of new versions of the same packages. Check the meanings with aptitude --help. Oh, and if you used apt-get, then don't. Use aptitude! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19) On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those implementations happen to have a 2 in its name. In that case (and based on a few other things which I've snipped), the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove libjack0. Ohhh: Most likely cause is that libjack-jackd2-dev provides libjack-dev! Why does it do that - it seems plain wrong to me! In combination with what Felipe pointed out about ia32-libs and jackd1, that looks like a plausible reason to me. (The ia32-libs factor also probably means that part of the culprit is the holds I have in place on a few other packages, which are also interfering with parts of the ia32-libs dummy-package transition. As such, this is at least partly my own fault, and may not manifest for everyone.) I'd guess that whoever set that up was operating on the same mistaken assumptions about the relation of the jack implementations to one another as I was. I thought the purpose of dist-upgrade, as opposed to upgrade, was simply to allow upgrades across scenarios where dependency changes require installation of different packages rather than simply of new versions of the same packages. Check the meanings with aptitude --help. On my system, the text output from that command does not include the string 'dist': wanderer@apologia$ aptitude --help | grep -i dist wanderer@apologia$ This is with aptitude 0.6.8.2-1. The aptitude man page does give a hint about what you might be talking about, but I wouldn't have interpreted the section on the 'full-upgrade' option to mean what you said. For what little that's worth. Oh, and if you used apt-get, then don't. Use aptitude! I'd rather not, thanks. I'm told that it's not a good idea to mix-and-match between aptitude and apt-get, and I find the aptitude UI to be palpably less friendly and manageable in most circumstances than that of apt-get. I'm aware that I'm a minority in this, but that doesn't change anything. (Though now that I look, I see an option in aptitude which I think wasn't there last time I looked, and which looks quite a bit like something I've been wanting in apt-get for some time now...) -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it. - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev
Package: libjack-dev Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so presumably this is part of an intended package transition. As part of the same dist-upgrade, apt wants to remove libjack-dev, but does not attempt to install libjack-jackd2-dev. This is not fine. Please modify package dependencies so that a dist-upgrade on a system where libjack-dev is installed will correctly transition to libjack-jackd2-dev. Alternately, if this transition would in fact not be correct, please explain to me what the correct procedure - even if a manual one - would be. (I suspect that this bug will actually have to be fixed in libjack-jackd2-dev, but I am reporting it against libjack-dev to make reportbug happy, as that is the package I currently have installed.) -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages libjack-dev depends on: ii libjack01:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1 ii pkg-config 0.26-1 libjack-dev recommends no packages. libjack-dev suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
