Re: The future (or non-future) of ia32-libs
Adam Borowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:07:56PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> It has to be held back. But apt-get/aptitude might select a solution
>> where they do get removed rather then hold back many other packages.
>> I'm hoping it will be held back automatically without user intervention
>> but that might not happen.
>> I'm not aware that this will happen but I also haven't tested a squeeze
>> -> wheezy upgrade with 32bit stuff installed. Experiece has just shown
>> that on large upgrades packages are easily removed instead of held back
>> and given the large number of updates involved users often miss a
>> specific one being listed.
> You don't need to go between releases: every time gcc-4.7 or eglibc get
> updated, apt wants to remove whole architectures which didn't build these
> packages yet.
> Having it hold in such a case would be nice.
That is a different situation though. There you have libfoo:amd64 and
libfoo:i386 in different versions.
Here you have ia32-libs depending on something that doesn't (yet) exist.