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

Bug#724854: apt: incorrect warning about unmet dependencies with virtual package




On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, David Kalnischkies wrote:

Hi Faheem,

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Faheem Mitha <faheem@faheem.info> wrote:

On wheezy amd64, I'm getting:

    faheem@orwell:~$ sudo apt-get install libjpeg62-dev libtiff4-dev
    Reading package lists... Done
    Building dependency tree
    Reading state information... Done
    Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
    requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
    distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
    or been moved out of Incoming.
    The following information may help to resolve the situation:

    The following packages have unmet dependencies:
     libtiff4-dev : Depends: libjpeg-dev
    E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

It is fairly obvious what the problem is.

libtiff4-dev depends on the virtual package libjpeg-dev, which is
currently provided by the installed libjpeg8-dev.

    faheem@orwell:~$ sudo apt-get install libjpeg-dev
    Reading package lists... Done
    Building dependency tree
    Reading state information... Done
    Note, selecting 'libjpeg8-dev' instead of 'libjpeg-dev'
    libjpeg8-dev is already the newest version.
    0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

However, libjpeg62-dev also provides libjpeg-dev. When installing
libjpeg62-dev, libjpeg8-dev is removed.

Sorry, but you lost me here.

apt-cache show libjpeg62-dev/stable libjpeg8-dev/stable | grep -e
'^Package:' -e 'Provides:'
Package: libjpeg62-dev
Package: libjpeg8-dev
Provides: libjpeg-dev

So, libjpeg62-dev isn't providing libjpeg-dev in stable – and also not
in testing or unstable.

You're right, this was in squeeze.

(It is also why apt-get is automatically deciding that you mean libjpeg8-dev
as it is the only provider, if there would be more, you would need to choose)

Right.

Also, libjpeg8-dev conflicts with libjpeg62-dev, so they can't co-exist
-> your first install request is indeed an impossible situation.

Ok, so it wasn't a bug after all. Sorry for the noise. Please close it. Sorry.

                                                       Regards, Faheem

Reply to: