Re: inconsistent versions of M-A: same packages
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-07 17:35:06)
> It just appeared to me that we probably do not have a syntax to pinpoint a
> package built for a specific architecture. "We" meaning in this case dpkg,
> apt, and dose (if I am not mistaken).
No. We do have it.
> The usual trick in dose would be, for all package names that exist on
> multiple architectures and that are M-A=same, to create a pseudo package like
> this:
>
> Package: p-multi
> Depends: amd64:p, i386:p
>
> and then to check installability of all these pseudo packages against a
> background of all the real Packages files.
If the above is a Debian Packages file, then it must be the other way round.
First the name and then the architecture. Dose3 internally does the encoding
the other way round which is very confusing because it exposes this in its yaml
output. If you wanted to write a cudf file, then your example is correct except
that your ":" must be encoded as "%3a".
> However, dose does currently not allow this syntax in dependencies, nor does
> dpkg TTBOMK.
Dose distcheck does not allow it but dose buildcheck does. This is probably a
bug in the distcheck frontend.
Dpkg and apt allow this just fine. Try to do:
apt-get install --simulate gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabihf
And you will end up with a number of armhf packages on your system (you have to
enable armhf beforehand of course).
> Internally, dose already identifies packages by a triple
> (architecture,name,version), so it should be only a question of extending the
> input language.
>
> Once we can teach dose to accept the pseudo packages as described above we
> could run it with all the Packages files for all archiectures, which makes
> roughly 500.000 packages.
This might fail not only because of M-A:same conflicts but also because some
packages just conflict with each other through a normal Conflicts:. You
probably need a clever way to partition dependencies.
cheers, josch
Reply to: