Bug#703868: libav: Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM, shirish शिरीष <shirishag75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> at bottom :-
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Besides having libavcodec54 being replaced with libavcodec-extra-54
>> (the latter is binary compatible with the former, but provides more
>> functionality, hence the "-extra-"), what exact problems do you
>> experience?
>
> that's not the question at all. I have no problems if one library is
> being replaced by another library which has better or more features,
> if it was there in the changelog somewhere about why the change is
> there but there is nothing to suggest the same in the changelogs of
> any of them of why it happens.
>
> libav (6:9.4-1) experimental; urgency=low
>
>   * Imported Upstream version 9.4
>     - h264: check for luma and chroma bit dept being equal (CVE-2013-2277)
>     - iff: validate CMAP palette size (CVE-2013-2495)
>     - Thus, closes: #703200
>   * debian/watch: download xz files and  tigthen checks
>
>  -- Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de>  Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:30:01 +0100
>
> That changelog is for the whole lot of them. Either it should have
> been part of the changelog so the user knows this is expected or
> something. The other thing I dunno if this library needs more memory
> than the regular library or something like that (extra functionality =
> extra memory,  I do understand not necessary all the time but still )
> .  I hope I am able to make sense.

I cannot imagine that any of the changes from 6:9.3-1 to 6:9.4-1 could
cause this, that's why nothing is mentioned in the change log.

>From your description I understand that this is some internal warning
from dpkg, and I am therefore inclined to reassign this bug there for
further investigation. I have not been able to reproduce the described
errors in my test chroots.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard