[Pkg-giraffe-maintainers] Bug#857377: kopano-dev: fails to upgrade from 'jessie' - trying to overwrite /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmapi.so

[Jelmer Vernooij]

FWIW OpenChange is no longer in Debian, and pretty much dead upstream.

It would be safe to just add a conflict.

On 12 March 2017 07:09:01 GMT-05:00, "Guido Günther" <agx at sigxcpu.org> wrote:
>Hi Carsten,
>
>I'm cc'ing the openchange maintainers so the become now that we
>have conflicting libs in Debian atm.
>
>On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 07:50:33PM +0100, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>> Am 10.03.2017 um 17:52 schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade
>from
>> > 'jessie'.
>> > It installed fine in 'jessie', then the upgrade to 'sid' fails
>> > because it tries to overwrite other packages files without
>declaring a
>> > Breaks+Replaces relation.
>> ...
>> >   Selecting previously unselected package kopano-dev.
>> >   Preparing to unpack .../kopano-dev_8.1.0-3_amd64.deb ...
>> >   Unpacking kopano-dev (8.1.0-3) ...
>> >   dpkg: error processing archive
>/var/cache/apt/archives/kopano-dev_8.1.0-3_amd64.deb (--unpack):
>> >    trying to overwrite '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmapi.so',
>which is also in package libmapi-dev 1:2.2-5+b1
>> 
>> looks like we have some clashing libaries now.
>> libmapi-dev comes from the openchange package.
>> 
>> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openchange
>> 
>> I think this needs some other name for the library that comes with
>> kopanocore. That's one thing Guido was mentioning in the past and
>making
>> libraries private libraries for Kopano. That's no Debian specific
>> problem in the end, this issue the users of the official Kopano
>packages
>> can also run into on Debian based systems.
>
>The library needs to be renamed or made private. Since we expect other
>tools to use it the former would be a better option. Marc, can you
>discuss the name change at kopano? On the other hand it seems that
>openchange is neither in stretch nor in sid so iff openchange is not
>developed anymore we could keep the name and just add a conflict. Maybe
>one of the openchange maintainers can shed some light on this?
>
>Cheers,
> -- Guido