[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#686346: dpkg is wrong about the install state of docbook-mathml, making the system in inconsistent state

(cc'ing debian-dpkg@ as this possibly is a problem for any dpkg user)

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
> So it would seem to me the arch-qualifying logic in apt is not right,
> it really only ever needs to arch-qualify if:
>   * dpkg supports --assert-multi-arch
>   AND
>   * the package is Multi-Arch:same

As I said in earlier discussions of Multi-Arch APT only checks for the first
and if this is true will call dpkg always with an architecture regardless of
if dpkg might or might not need it for this specific package simply because
that is a lot easier than trying to work out if this dpkg is a debian-dpkg or
an ubuntu-dpkg in a pre-multiarch or post-multiarch state and therefore needs
to spill out with architecture, without architecture or just sometimes either.

I think you agreed with this, but my memory might trick me here.
I at least can't remember anyone saying that clients shouldn't - so they did.

> Because M-A:same packages are guaranteed to always have a valid
> architecture, something that cannot be expected from non-M-A:same
> packages due to legacy reasons.

Really? (I never had a package without an architecture installed …)
Anyway, dpkg does some internal defaulting, doesn't it, as otherwise
I don't see how such a package can satisfy any dependency on this name,
so it would be nice if dpkg could accept whatever default it assumes as
explicitly mentioned architecture, too.

Otherwise we need to clone this to aptitude (as it does some direct dpkg
calling on its own as far as I know) and whatever other dpkg front-end assumed
that it could arch-qualify everything in a multi-arch universe.

Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Reply to: