I didn't realise it was coming from experimental. I was simply doing apt dist-upgrade.
I uninstalled old (and not installed new) package, that triggered removal of octave-dev, then reinstalled octave-dev, and it installed fine, but also pulled this new version of hdf5-mpich-103. I am not at the computer right now, but I will check apt and dpkg logs. On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, 11:05 Gilles Filippini <p...@debian.org wrote: > On 2018-12-05 10:53, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:35:17AM +0100, Gilles Filippini wrote: > >> Control: severity -1 wishlist > >> Control: tags -1 + wontfix > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2018-12-05 00:34, Witold Baryluk wrote: > >> > Package: libhdf5-mpich-103 > >> > Severity: important > >> > > >> > > >> > The following additional packages will be installed: > >> > libhdf5-mpich-103 > >> > The following NEW packages will be installed: > >> > libhdf5-mpich-103 > >> > 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 141 not upgraded. > >> > 2 not fully installed or removed. > >> > Need to get 0 B/1365 kB of archives. > >> > After this operation, 4688 kB of additional disk space will be used. > >> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > >> > (Reading database ... 551515 files and directories currently > installed.) > >> > Preparing to unpack .../libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb > ... > >> > Unpacking libhdf5-mpich-103:amd64 (1.10.4+repack-1) ... > >> > dpkg: error processing archive > >> > /var/cache/apt/archives/libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb > >> > (--unpack): > >> > trying to overwrite > >> > '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libhdf5_mpich_fortran.so.100', which is > >> > also in package libhdf5-mpich-101:amd64 1.10.2+repack-1~exp1 > >> > Errors were encountered while processing: > >> > /var/cache/apt/archives/libhdf5-mpich-103_1.10.4+repack-1_amd64.deb > >> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > >> > >> I do not agree: HDF5 1.10.2 was uploaded to experimental only. While > >> this > >> conflict do exist, there is no unhandled conflict with previous > >> releases > >> from testing or unstable. > > > > What is the problem with adding Replaces+Conflicts > > also for libhdf5-mpich-101? > > > > I agree that the severity looks less clear if this was > > experimental-only, > > but it is also pretty easy to do. > > Sure, this is an unfortunate oversight from me. But (1) hdf5 1.10.4 is > currently > transitioning and I don't want to delay that anymore, and (2) I expect > that > anybody installing packages from experimental is able to deal with this > kind > of conflict. > > > In theory (likely not applicable here) it is even possible that some > > downstream distribution like Ubuntu shipped the experimental version > > in a stable release. > > No, ubuntu didn't ship any HDF5 release from experimental. And packages > from > experimental must not be used in any stable release. Quoting the FAQ: > > Experimental is used for packages which are still being developed, and > > with > > a high risk of breaking your system. It's used by developers who'd like > > to > > study and test bleeding edge software. Users shouldn't be using > > packages > > from there, because they can be dangerous and harmful even for the most > > experienced people. > > Thanks, > > _g. > > >
