Bug#915573: libhdf5-mpich-103:amd64 should conflict with libhdf5-mpich-101:amd64

[Witold Baryluk]

I didn't realise it was coming from experimental.

I was simply doing apt dist-upgrade.

I uninstalled old (and not installed new) package, that triggered removal
of octave-dev, then reinstalled octave-dev, and it installed fine, but also
pulled this new version of hdf5-mpich-103. I am not at the computer right
now, but I will check apt and dpkg logs.



On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, 11:05 Gilles Filippini <pini at debian.org wrote:

> On 2018-12-05 10:53, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:35:17AM +0100, Gilles Filippini wrote:
> >> Control: severity -1 wishlist
> >> Control: tags -1 + wontfix
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2018-12-05 00:34, Witold Baryluk wrote:
> >> > Package: libhdf5-mpich-103
> >> > Severity: important
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The following additional packages will be installed:
> >> >   libhdf5-mpich-103
> >> > The following NEW packages will be installed:
> >> >   libhdf5-mpich-103
> >> > 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 141 not upgraded.
> >> > 2 not fully installed or removed.
> >> > Need to get 0 B/1365 kB of archives.
> >> > After this operation, 4688 kB of additional disk space will be used.
> >> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
> >> > (Reading database ... 551515 files and directories currently
> installed.)
> >> > Preparing to unpack .../libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb
> ...
> >> > Unpacking libhdf5-mpich-103:amd64 (1.10.4+repack-1) ...
> >> > dpkg: error processing archive
> >> > /var/cache/apt/archives/libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb
> >> > (--unpack):
> >> >  trying to overwrite
> >> > '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libhdf5_mpich_fortran.so.100', which is
> >> > also in package libhdf5-mpich-101:amd64 1.10.2+repack-1~exp1
> >> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >> >  /var/cache/apt/archives/libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb
> >> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> >>
> >> I do not agree: HDF5 1.10.2 was uploaded to experimental only. While
> >> this
> >> conflict do exist, there is no unhandled conflict with previous
> >> releases
> >> from testing or unstable.
> >
> > What is the problem with adding Replaces+Conflicts
> > also for libhdf5-mpich-101?
> >
> > I agree that the severity looks less clear if this was
> > experimental-only,
> > but it is also pretty easy to do.
>
> Sure, this is an unfortunate oversight from me. But (1) hdf5 1.10.4 is
> currently
> transitioning and I don't want to delay that anymore, and (2) I expect
> that
> anybody installing packages from experimental is able to deal with this
> kind
> of conflict.
>
> > In theory (likely not applicable here) it is even possible that some
> > downstream distribution like Ubuntu shipped the experimental version
> > in a stable release.
>
> No, ubuntu didn't ship any HDF5 release from experimental. And packages
> from
> experimental must not be used in any stable release. Quoting the FAQ:
> > Experimental is used for packages which are still being developed, and
> > with
> > a high risk of breaking your system. It's used by developers who'd like
> > to
> > study and test bleeding edge software. Users shouldn't be using
> > packages
> > from there, because they can be dangerous and harmful even for the most
> > experienced people.
>
> Thanks,
>
> _g.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/attachments/20181205/fb0f65c5/attachment.html>