Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev

[Jonas Smedegaard]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20121210/ef9adab6/attachment.pgp>