Hello,
I am a new comer to this forum and to opensuse (but not new to Linux :)) . I am having some problems in installing ffmpeg on opensuse 13.1. Following is the output I get while trying to install ffmpeg.
ahsan@linux-51zl:~> sudo zypper install ffmpeg
Loading repository data...
Reading installed packages...
Resolving package dependencies...
Problem: ffmpeg-2.2-1.4.x86_64 requires libswscale2 = 2.2, but this requirement cannot be provided
uninstallable providers: libswscale2-2.2-1.4.i586[ftp.gwdg.de-suse]
libswscale2-2.2-1.4.x86_64[ftp.gwdg.de-suse]
Solution 1: install libswscale2-2.2-1.4.x86_64 (with vendor change)
openSUSE --> http://packman.links2linux.de
Solution 2: do not install ffmpeg-2.2-1.4.x86_64
Solution 3: do not install ffmpeg-2.2-1.4.x86_64
Solution 4: break ffmpeg-2.2-1.4.x86_64 by ignoring some of its dependencies
Choose from above solutions by number or cancel [1/2/3/4/c] (c):
Could someone help what exactly is the problem here?
On 2014-05-12 01:16, mahsank wrote:
>
> Could someone help what exactly is the problem here?
No problem at all, just choose libswscale2 from packman, solution 1.
libswscale has two providers, or two repos to choose from. You can get
2.0 from opensuse, or 2.2 from packman. ffmpeg wants 2.2, and you should
be using packman for multimedia, anyway.
There is a multimedia guide in the howto area, and a sticky on the
multimedia area. read them both. The issue is that multimedia stuff with
potential legal problems can not be provided directly on the corporate
servers used by openSUSE, so they are provided by alternative groups.
Packman is the main one.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
I don’t have a good answer.
I have version 2.1.1-3.3 installed here. However, the version in packman is different.
It looks as if ffmpeg has been updated in packman, while some of its dependencies are not yet updated to match.
Looking through the dependency list for libswscale2, it looks as if it needs an update to glibc.
There’s probably a pending update that has not yet been released.
On 2014-05-12 03:26, nrickert wrote:
>
> I don’t have a good answer.
>
> I have version 2.1.1-3.3 installed here. However, the version in
> packman is different.
>
> It looks as if ffmpeg has been updated in packman, while some of its
> dependencies are not yet updated to match.
>
> Looking through the dependency list for libswscale2, it looks as if it
> needs an update to glibc.
I have libswscale2-2.2-1.4 installed. All my packman things are updated,
and I got no conflict at all, no missing parts.
My glibc is 2.18-411.1 from oss-updates.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
I have 2.1.1-3.3 installed. And when I check updates with “zypper lu”, it is not listed as an update. So something is blocking 2.2-1.4.
On 2014-05-12 04:56, nrickert wrote:
>
> robin_listas;2642610 Wrote:
>> I have libswscale2-2.2-1.4 installed. All my packman things are updated,
>> and I got no conflict at all, no missing parts.
>
> I have 2.1.1-3.3 installed. And when I check updates with “zypper lu”,
> it is not listed as an update. So something is blocking 2.2-1.4.
I got libswscale2 2.1.3-1.2 on Feb 20, and 2.2-1.3 on April 24. So, yes,
you have something stuck.
I would fire up yast (QT flavour), repository view, mark “@system”, then
secondary filter to “unmantained packages”, and lets see what you find…
And then select the packman repo, search for the libswscale2 package,
and see in the version tab what you can find. Click to update it to the
appropriate version, and see what it complains about, if anything.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
It complains about a conflict with libavfilter3-2.1.1-3.3.x86_64
Uninstall libavfilter3. It’s the one from the older ffmpeg 2.1.1 (as the version number shows) and is not even available in the Packman repo any more.
This blocks the installation of libavfilter4 which is required by ffmpeg 2.2.
The OP’s problem is not related to yours though.
On 2014-05-12 10:46, wolfi323 wrote:
>
> nrickert;2642620 Wrote:
>> It complains about a conflict with libavfilter3-2.1.1-3.3.x86_64
> Uninstall libavfilter3. It’s the one from the older ffmpeg 2.1.1 (as the
> version number shows) and is not even available in the Packman repo any
> more.
It should then have displayed in red in the “unmantained packages”
section I mentioned.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
Yes, it was. Is it good practice to remove packages that become unmaintained?
Well, it depends, but in general I would say yes.
Normally those packages just sit on your hard disk and are not used by anything, so they just occupy space unnecessary.
Sometimes they even cause dependency conflicts, as in your case. (libavfilter3 and libavfilter4 both provide libavfilter. I don’t know why, maybe this “Provides: libavfilter” should just be removed? Seems to be a left-over from ancient times where you had to explicitely specify what the rpm Provides/Requires, nowadays rpmbuild generates this automatically, for libraries at least)
If you have an old application installed that requires those unmaintained packages, you should not remove them of course for obvious reasons.
On 2014-05-12 14:26, nrickert wrote:
>
> robin_listas;2642693 Wrote:
>> It should then have displayed in red in the “unmantained packages”
>> section I mentioned.
>
> Yes, it was. Is it good practice to remove packages that become
> unmaintained?
Depends.
If it comes from packman, yes, because it usually means they got
replaced with something else.
But it can also be a package that you installed directly without a repo,
or disabled the repo later - I have some such, like skype or realplay
(which I did not even remember I had). You don’t delete those if you
need them.
“unmaintained” in this context means that there is not a listed repo
active for that particular package.
For instance, as I upgrade my machines from versions to versions, I get
some “unmantained” packages that came from extra repos that I have not
yet added on the new openSUSE release. So I just add the appropriate
repo, and then upgrade that red package.
I found about that search feature in YaST just a month or two ago.
Question: Does zypper have an equivalent query? :-?
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
Okay. That was pretty much my assumption.
There were 6 listed packages. Of those, 5 were from packman. Attempting to remove “libavfilter3” did give a conflict warning, but the recommended solution (install “libavfilter4”) seemed correct. The other 4 from packman did not generate any warnings, so I removed those, too.
The one remaining package listed seemed to come from the DVD, and probably includes only a file saying that I installed from the DVD. I left that one there, though I’m sure it would be harmless to remove it.
I’ve more-or-less done that, as I indicated in a reply to Carlos.
A vaguely related question:
On a recently installed system, “zypper up” tells me that k3b will not be updated. But on main desktop, that is not happening. On looking at versions, it looks to me as if I have installed an older packman version, but with a higher version number. I’m guessing that there was a bad version number at some time in the past, and I probably should uninstall that, and switch to the version currently in packman.
Yes.
In November k3b got updated to the 2.0.80 development version in Packman. But then people reported crashes, so it was downgraded again:
http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/2013-December/012652.html
http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/2013-December/012657.html
On 2014-05-12 16:46, nrickert wrote:
>
> wolfi323;2642707 Wrote:
>> Well, it depends, but in general I would say yes.
>
> I’ve more-or-less done that, as I indicated in a reply to Carlos.
>
> A vaguely related question:
>
> On a recently installed system, “zypper up” tells me that k3b will not
> be updated. But on main desktop, that is not happening. On looking at
> versions, it looks to me as if I have installed an older packman
> version, but with a higher version number. I’m guessing that there was
> a bad version number at some time in the past, and I probably should
> uninstall that, and switch to the version currently in packman.
When that happens, “zypper up” will not update (because it sees it as an
“down-date” (ugh - I’m thick tonight)), but in YaST you will see the
package in red, and you can force it to “update”.
It may also show on that “unmantained” search.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
On 2014-05-12 16:46, nrickert wrote:
> The one remaining package listed seemed to come from the DVD, and
> probably includes only a file saying that I installed from the DVD. I
> left that one there, though I’m sure it would be harmless to remove it.
No, leave it there. It is in red because you probably disabled the DVD
as “repo”.
Ah, I think I know the package you mean. Leave it there, yes. It may be
used by scripts on yast somewhere when checking for actions to do (maybe
on system upgrade). As we do not know exactly which scripts test for it,
just leave it alone 
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))