Bug#666760: [libc6-dev] Make libc6-dev multiarch-installable
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-06-03 10:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Either we have to make them conflict one with another (that is
> >> > libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev, libc0.3-dev with libc6-dev, etc.),
> >>
> >> Note that this holds whether or not these packages are "M-A: same".
> >
> > No, because these packages are architecture specific, so they are not
> > co-installable. For example libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev might have
> > conflicting files, but you can't install libc0.1-dev (kfreebsd-amd64
> > only) together with libc6-dev, unless they are marked "M-A: same".
>
> Marking them "M-A: same" is not going to resolve these conflicts,
> because libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev still belong to different package
> sets, and with --force-overwrite you can install libc0.1-dev along
> libc6-dev already.
My point there is that given the package is that marking as "M-A: same"
also implicitly means that the packager has verified that the package is
not going to conflict with any other file. And if he/she failed to do
so, it's a serious bug in the package, like we handled file conflicts
bugs before the multiarch era.
Currently theses packages are not marked as "M-A: same", so it's not a
bug in a package, but rather a bug in a multiarch specification allowing
this.
> >> > or we have to check for these packages as if they were a single one.
> >>
> >> This means they would need to have the same name (probably libc-dev) on
> >> all architectures.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, thinking about that, either we want to make it fully multiarch, in
> > that case all libc*-dev needs to be renamed to the same name, or we
> > should add conflicts to prevent someone trying to install for example
> > libc6.1-dev along with libc6-dev.
>
> Renaming seems to be the best long-term solution to me, but using
> conflicts is probably safer for wheezy. For instance,
> kfreebsd-kernel-headers:kfreebsd-i386 contains files clashing with both
> libc6:i386 and linux-libc-dev:i386:
>
I came to the same conclusion.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: