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

[Sebastian Ramacher]

Control: reassign -1 aptitude

On 2013-03-25 11:25:37, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Source: libav
> Version: 6:9.4-1
> Severity: normal
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
>         I was updating the system today and came across this :-
> 
> $ sudo aptitude install libswscale2=6:9.4-1 libswscale-dev=6:9.4-1
> libavutil-dev=6:9.4-1 libavcodec-dev=6:9.4-1 libavutil52=6:9.4-1
> libavformat-dev=6:9.4-1 libavformat54=6:9.4-1 -y
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   libavcodec-extra-54{ab}
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   libavcodec-dev libavformat-dev libavformat54 libavutil-dev
> libavutil52 libswscale-dev libswscale2
> 7 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 6,876 kB of archives. After unpacking 7,697 kB will be used.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  libavcodec54 : Conflicts: libavcodec-extra-54 but 6:9.4-1 is to be installed.
>  libavcodec-extra-54 : Conflicts: libavcodec54 but 6:9.3-1 is installed.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> Internal error: found 2 (choice -> promotion) mappings for a single choice.
> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
> 
>   Remove the following packages:
> 1)     libavcodec54
> 
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   libavcodec-extra-54{a}
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   libavcodec54{a}
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   libavcodec-dev libavformat-dev libavformat54 libavutil-dev
> libavutil52 libswscale-dev libswscale2
> 7 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 6,876 kB of archives. After unpacking 975 kB will be used.
> 
> While I don't understand all the implications of the above upgrade,
> however I do understand that one of the packages is being removed
> while the other is taking it's place. I didn't find anything in the
> changelog as to why this is desirable. Also why it took one choice
> when it says there are two choices.
> 
> Looking forward for more info. Maybe I did something wrong.

On 2013-03-25 13:20:35, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> 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.

The warning is from aptitude:

http://sources.debian.net/src/aptitude/0.6.11-1/src/generic/problemresolver/problemresolver.h/#L2495

So let's reassign this issue to aptitude. I concur with Reinhard that no
changes in libav would explain the issue. Let's see what the aptitude
maintainers have to say about it.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20150101/497ea974/attachment.sig>