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

[The Wanderer]

On 12/14/2012 05:59 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM, The Wanderer <wanderer at 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