Bug#680613: libav: Multi-Arch: foreign libraries

[Stepan Golosunov]

07.07.2012 ц≈ 18:30:49 +0200 Reinhard Tartler ц▌ц│ц░ц┴ц⌠ц│ц▄:
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Stepan Golosunov <stepan at golosunov.pp.ru> wrote:
> > 07.07.2012 ц≈ 11:57:47 +0200 Reinhard Tartler ц▌ц│ц░ц┴ц⌠ц│ц▄:
> >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Stepan Golosunov
> >> <stepan at golosunov.pp.ru> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > libavutil-extra-51, libavdevice-extra-53, libavfilter-extra-2,
> >> > libpostproc-extra-52, libavformat-extra-53 and libswscale-extra-2 are
> >> > Multi-Arch: foreign transitional packages.
> >> >
> >> > This allows the packages to satisfy dependencies of
> >> > foreign-architecture packages while providing only libraries for
> >> > a native architecture, which is obviously incorrect.
> >> >
> >> > Transitional library packages should be Multi-Arch: same (but that
> >> > would require making them Architecture: any). I guess these packages
> >> > should just be removed, as the only non-transitional versions of the
> >> > packages still existing in Debian are uninstallable 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1
> >> > packages in backports and obsolete 4:0.7.2.1+b1 armhf on debports.
> >>
> >> Well, AFAIUI this is a good reason to defer this for after wheezy
> >> release. Is there anything we can do about this issue for wheezy?
> >
> > What's "this"? Existence of the packages in backports?
> > They became uninstallable when libav 0.8 was uploaded to backports
> > months ago. (In any case, libav-extra source package probably needs
> > be removed from backports.)
> 
> Yes, AFAIUI such removals happen on a regular basis without needing to
> file a bug.

But libav-extra still hasn't been removed despite being uninstallable
for months.

> BTW, libavformat-extra-53 from bpo is perfectly installable for me.
> Can you elaborate why they are not for you?

http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libavformat-extra-53

There are two versions of libavformat-extra-53 in backports. One from
libav-extra and one from libav. The first one is uninstallable as
there is only one version of libavcodec-extra-53. The second one is
a transitional package. (The obsolete libavformat-extra-53 probably
still exists because the transitional one is Architecture: all.)

% zgrep -A10 'Package: libavformat-extra-53' Packages.gz 
Package: libavformat-extra-53
Priority: optional
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 2108
Maintainer: Debian multimedia packages maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: libav-extra
Version: 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1
Replaces: libavformat53
Depends: libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1), libavcodec-extra-53 (<< 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1-99), libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1), libavutil-extra-51 (<< 4:0.7.2.1~bpo60+1-99), libbz2-1.0, libc6 (>= 2.7), librtmp0 (>= 2.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
Conflicts: libavformat53
--
Package: libavformat-extra-53
Priority: optional
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 68
Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>
Architecture: all
Source: libav
Version: 6:0.8.3-1~bpo60+1
Depends: libavformat53
Filename: pool/main/liba/libav/libavformat-extra-53_0.8.3-1~bpo60+1_all.deb
Size: 40658

> > If the transitional packages are to stay, the correct way to proceed
> > is either to change them to Multi-Arch: same, Architecture: any or to
> > remove their Multi-Arch headers.
> 
> Err, they (i.e., all but libavcodec-extra-53, and that's critical) are
> already Arch: all, with Multi-arch: foreign. Do I understand you
> correctly that they should rather by Multi-arch: same?

Yes. Now in testing apt-get allows installing, for example,
minidlna:amd64 on a system with i386 dpkg without installing
libavformat53:amd64, as the
Depends: libavformat53 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavformat-extra-53 (>= 4:0.8-1~)
is satisfiable by libavformat-extra-53:all and libavformat53:i386
combination.