On 11-07-14 12:28 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
Daniel meant to say "best to not do different architectures from the same config tree" I am sure.
Ah, I suspected that was a typo. That's why I emphasized that I was indeed doing that. :) So generally people have a completely separate config setup for each architecture? Isn't that a lot of duplication?
Good. That's what I was trying to steer you towards. If you're already doing it and your auto/clean works properly (by removing the old config/* top-level files) then all should be well.
Yes, that's exactly what is being done. I noticed that Daniel's auto/clean script removes some files that his auto/config creates. That's the only difference between his example and what I use. Our auto/config files are necessarily different.
As I said, I don't know if that has anything to do with the dependency issues or not. It may simply be a temporary issue with the archives. Different arches are not always updated simultaneously, as the autobuilders take time to kick in ... also, sometimes autobuilds on an architecture different from the maintainer's own architecture can fail for some reason, leading to uninstallable packages for a longer period of time until a fixed package is provided.
Ah, there' a clue! I'm building on a 64 bit laptop with corresponding kernel. It doesn't seem to want to pick up *any* dependencies when I build i386. I looked at a diff between the logs of both build attempts and there's nothing different of any consequence until it fails for i386:
"Some packages could not be installed."
versus the amd64 build:
"The following extra packages will be installed:"
followed by a huge list of all files I specified and their dependencies.
Does that sound like the behaviour expected from archive issues?
Again, thanks so much to you and Daniel for the help so far. I think people are going to like the distribution that results from all of this! :)
Daniel