On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 11:15 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 23:51:12 -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > That said, the HDF5 transition seems a bit premature. There are some > > fundamental changes which have broken a couple of its reverse-depends, > > which is one reason so many packages needed to be removed from testing > > in order to transition it. > > > I'm sorry but I wasn't going to hold testing hostage of hdf5 for much > longer than a month... This is a new regression that happened since January 21 and broke at least med-fichier, with several rdeps of its own. But I understand, it had to go in at some point. > > In particular, it's impossible to install hdf5-tools and > > libhdf5-*mpi-dev at the same time, as is required to build a handful of > > reverse-depends [3]. There's no reason the MPI and non-MPI shared libs > > should conflict. > > > Well there's no way they can be installed together as long as they ship > the same files, this is not a new issue AFAICT... Of course. I'll post a patch hopefully sometime today which resolves the conflict. > > [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586149 > > > And this bug is almost 2 years old, I don't see that it has anything to > do with the recent changes? Because it's the same issue: inability to install multiple versions of the HDF5 libraries simultaneously. Then again, the new issue, the regression, is that hdf5-tools and libhdf5-mpi-dev can't be installed simultaneously, so perhaps this is a different issue. But resolving the shared library conflict fixes this new problem. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part