Package libmpcdec3 is missing from maverick repos

[Harry]

I can see that the package libmpcdec3 has been deleted from the maverick repos.
See the bug #598874.
Now we have a dependency problem with VLC_1.1.1-1+exp1ubuntu1 in maverick.
Package vlc-nox depends on libmpcdec3.
You cannot install package libmpcdec6 instead.

[Anders Kaseorg (andersk)]

libmpcdec3
  Reverse Depends: aqualung (0.9~beta11-1ubuntu3)
  Reverse Depends: cmus (2.3.3-1)
  Reverse Depends: cynthiune.app (0.9.5-7.1ubuntu2)
  Reverse Depends: gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad (0.10.19-1ubuntu2)
  Reverse Depends: libk3b6 (2.0.0-0ubuntu3)
  Reverse Depends: libqmmp-misc (0.4.1-1build1)
  Reverse Depends: libtunepimp5 (0.5.3-7.3ubuntu1)
  Reverse Depends: libtunepimp5-mp3 (0.5.3-7.3ubuntu1)
  Reverse Depends: libxine1-misc-plugins (1.1.18.1-4ubuntu2)
  Reverse Depends: mencoder (2:1.0~rc3++final-0ubuntu3)
  Reverse Depends: moc (1:2.5.0~alpha4+svn20091009-1build2)
  Reverse Depends: mpc123 (0.2.4-1)
  Reverse Depends: mpd (0.15.10-1ubuntu2)
  Reverse Depends: mplayer (2:1.0~rc3++final-0ubuntu3)
  Reverse Depends: mplayer-gui (2:1.0~rc3++final-0ubuntu3)
  Reverse Depends: vlc-nox (1.1.1-1+exp1ubuntu1)
  Reverse Depends: xmms2-plugin-musepack (0.7DrNo-7.1)

For now, can the libmpcdec3 binary be resurrected, until it is deleted by the normal NBS process when all the rdeps are rebuilt?

[Harry (harry33)]

Libmpcdec3 is still missing from maverick repos.
This being the case, vlc cannot be installed at all.
When vlc is rebuilt, the new version 1.1.2 should be used.

[Harry (harry33)]

The new update of the package vlc (vlc 1.1.1-1+exp1ubuntu2) solves this issue (fix released).
Vlc-nox has now been built against libmpcdec6.
The newest release of vlc (1.1.2), however, could have been used already.

[Sam Liddicott (sam-liddicott)]

This also affects gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad:

The following packages have unmet dependencies.
 gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad : Depends: libmpcdec3 but it is not installable

[Anders Kaseorg (andersk)]

Reopening since libmpcdec3 is still missing and still has rdeps that haven’t been rebuilt (cynthiune.app and gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad).

[Jonathan Riddell (jr)]

Closing this bug
I can not see any rdepends, but if there are rdepends which have not been updated for the new library version that's a bug in the rdepends
ubuntu-archive shouldn't be subscribed, it's an issue of core-dev or motu or another team, not our issue

[Anders Kaseorg (andersk)]

Jonathan: Is there a bug for fixing the Debian deletion sync scripts to only delete source packages, and wait for binary packages to be deleted by the normal NBS process?

[Sam Liddicott (sam-liddicott)]

gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad now installs.

NOTE: It's an insult to the reporters to mark the report as invalid as this which suggests that the bug submitters and the bug-confirmer are incompetent.

It damages good-will

I think it should be marked as fixed, not invalid.

[Adam Conrad (adconrad)]

I'm not sure that using emotionally charged language like "incompetent" helps here, but the reality is that during a library transition like this, the bugs belong with the rdeps of the library, not the library itself. It's not a bug when a library has an SOVER bump, it's a bug when the rdeps don't get rebuilt to compensate.

[Sam Liddicott (sam-liddicott)]

You are probably right about the word "incompetent" but the same applies to the word "invalid".

It conveys the primary message "you got it wrong" or "it's not a bug" when the fact is "it's a bug filed against the wrong packages"

But whether or not the bug belongs with the rdeps depends on what the outcome of the analysis actually is:

It's impossible to know which are the right packages unless one is privy to the packaging decisions of the next release; i.e. one knows that:
1. libmpcdec3 is being dropped and rdeps being rebuilt
instead of
2. libmpcdec3 being kept because of irreconcilable rdeps.

and that the plan might change after the bug report is considered.

Which of 1 or 2 is finally followed and therefore where the bug should have really been filed depends on the analysis of the bug report. If 2 was followed (which is reasonable if vlc could not have used the newer library then the bug would not have been invalid).

"invalid" is an emotionally charged word; and it doesn't help if there is now way the filer can know how the bug should be filed. I don't know if the bug there is with launchpad or ubuntu policy.

I feel better now I've said that.

[Anders Kaseorg (andersk)]

> It's not a bug when a library has an SOVER bump, it's a bug when the
> rdeps don't get rebuilt to compensate.

No, see, this case was different from a normal SONAME bump. Normally when the SONAME is bumped, the old binary package remains in the repository for as long as it has rdeps. It is removed automatically _after_ all the rdeps have been rebuilt. This prevents packages from becoming temporarily uninstallable. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NBS>

But in this case, the old binary was deleted by a script Jonathan ran that deletes packages that have been deleted from Debian. The bug here is that the script should only be deleting source packages, not binary packages. The binary package deletion should happen through the normal NBS process.