[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libhe5-hdfeos0 vs. libhdf5-openmpi-7: fails to provide?

>>>>> Aaron M Ucko <ucko@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:

 >> It looks that while libhdf5-openmpi-7 Provides: libhdf5-7, the
 >> libhe5-hdfeos0 package somehow insists on installing the “real”
 >> libhdf5-7, thereby preventing the cdo package from being installed
 >> at the same time.

 > This problem arises because dpkg conservatively refuses to let
 > provided package names satisfy versioned dependencies.  The current
 > hdf5 packaging accounts for that by indicating that dependent
 > packages should declare unversioned dependencies,

	Where is this recommendation recorded?  A quick search over
	/usr/share/doc/ has revealed nothing on that matter.

 > but hdf-eos5 just mixed the fix.  The next hdf5-eos upload of any
 > sort should pick up a proper unversioned dependency; a binary-only
 > rebuild may be in order unless its maintainer plans to issue another
 > sourceful upload soon.

	I've just filed a bug report against libhe5-hdfeos0.  Thanks.

FSF associate member #7257

Reply to: