Xpra 4.4.3-r0-1 on Debian prevents Python upgrade to 3.11

[fpoto]

xpra : Depends: python3 (< 3.11) but 3.11.1-2 is to be installed

[totaam]

Looks like an exact duplicate of #3752.
If you are on bookworm, just update again.

[fpoto]

It does not look like the same as #3752. The issue here is that Xpra requires python3 (<< 3.11)

Debian wants to upgrade Python to 3.11.1-2, so all packages requiring Python 3.11 cannot be installed unless Xpra is removed

[totaam]

@fpoto it is exactly like #3752:

 xpra : Depends: python3 (< 3.11) but 3.11.1-2 is to be installed

My guess is that despite running an unstable ABI distro, you only have the stable repository installed.
Please install the beta channel for beta distros.

[fpoto]

Thanks. That was indeed the case. If possible, it would be clearer if in the download page only the link relative to the beta version was present next to the Bookworm Debian distribution

[totaam]

If possible, it would be clearer if in the download page only the link relative to the beta version was present next to the Bookworm Debian distribution

Done:
https://github.com/Xpra-org/xpra/wiki/Download/_compare/db0ef45308c88225641f75cb1e25606233f2213d

[adamhotep]

FYI, installing the beta unstable xpra package on Debian testing (currently Bookworm) required me to run apt install libproc2-0/unstable to manage that dependency.

To make more permanent, add this to /etc/apt/preferences.d/xpra.pref:

Explanation: https://github.com/Xpra-org/xpra/issues/3755
Package: xpra
Pin: release a=unstable,o=xpra.org
Pin-Priority: 500

Explanation: Xpra needs this
Package: libproc2-0
Pin: release a=unstable
Pin-Priority: 500

Also of note, the xpra command line syntax changed from 4.4.3 to 5.0 beta. Xpra no longer takes the username from ~/.ssh/config (more specifically, it overrides it with ssh -l even when no explicit username was specified) and the old syntax of ssh:hostname:display has turned into ssh://[username@]hostname[:port]/display (this is a bug since the new man page clearly states there is backwards compatibility, but my display number was interpreted as a port).

[totaam]

@adamhotep these have nothing to do with this ticket, do they?
The libproc2 issue was introduced by @adamnew123456 in #3738 : 6a41cd9 and AFAICT, this has nothing to do with bookworm ABI.
The ssh issue is not clear, as for the syntax change, it can be found here: #3599

This ticket is closed.

[adamhotep]

@totaam: My comment was related to the official workaround of upgrading to the beta channel, which won't work without this change. I could not upgrade my Debian Testing (Bookworm) system to Xpra 5.0 beta without pulling libproc2-0 4.0.3-1 from unstable. Xpra wouldn't install with libproc2-0 4.0.2-3 from testing. The reason for that is the Xpra dependencies:

$ apt depends xpra |grep libproc2-0
  Depends: libproc2-0 (>= 2:4.0.3)
$ apt policy libproc2-0
libproc2-0:
  Installed: 2:4.0.3-1
  Candidate: 2:4.0.3-1
  Version table:
 *** 2:4.0.3-1 500
          1 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     2:4.0.2-3 500
        500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
        100 https://http.kali.org/kali kali-rolling/main amd64 Packages
$

(Priority 500 comes from my previous comment's xpra.perf config)

I can file a separate ticket for the ssh username collision issue.

[adamnew123456]

@adamhotep

FYI, installing the beta unstable xpra package on Debian testing (currently Bookworm) required me to run apt install libproc2-0/unstable to manage that dependency.

I think the freeze around testing / Bookworm either has started already or is supposed to soon. So while you could get away with using the unstable repo against testing before, they're going to drift more and more the closer Bookworm gets to release.

AIUI, there's nothing to gain by running unstable packages against testing since @totaam builds the same code into the testing packages as the unstable ones. So using https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Xpra-org/xpra/master/packaging/repos/bookworm/xpra-beta.sources is recommended for testing systems.

[totaam]

@adamhotep like @adamnew123456 said above, you are using the wrong repository for your distribution.
Please follow the download instructions:
https://github.com/Xpra-org/xpra/wiki/Download#-for-debian-based-distributions
The latest package for bookworm correctly depends on libproc2-0 (>= 2:4.0.2).

[adamhotep]

Yes, confirmed. It works when I've got the proper testing repo.