Control: tag -1 + confirmed
Hi Josh,
Josh Triplett wrote:
> When trying to upgrade current unstable, I encountered a dependency
> resolution issue I've never seen in aptitude before. Because "chromium
> conflicts with libavcodec58 (= 7:4.3-2)", aptitude suggested the
> solution of removing libavcodec58 and installing libavcodec-extra58.
> However, accepting that solution (pressing '!') then introduced new
> problems, where libavcodec-extra58's dependencies weren't satisfied.
Indeed, I ran into this, too with chromium and libavcodec58, too.
Don't remember all the details anymore, though.
> Accepting *that* solution by pressing '!' again turned up the problem
> that "chromium (upgrade, 81.0.4044.92-1 -> 83.0.4103.116-1) conflicts
> with libavcodec58 (= 7:4.3-2) (provided by libavcodec-extra58 7:4.3-2)".
I didn't notice that this goes further recursively as I intervened and
solved this myself. And since it so far only surfaced one single time,
I didn't think much about it.
But the way you describe it sounds more severe than I expected. It
also shows that this wasn't just a one-time issue showing up on only
my system.
> It seems like aptitude wasn't actually evaluating the consequences of
> its proposed dependency resolutions to ensure they reached a valid
> dependency state.
Ack. This is though probably nothing new and only surfaced through the
current situation around chromium and ffmpeg where (dependency-wise)
you either can have ffmpeg from testing and chromium from unstable or
vice versa.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
