On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:43:55PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>, 2014-11-06, 18:10: > >$ sudo apt-get upgrade > >Reading package lists... Done > >Building dependency tree > >Reading state information... Done > >You might want to run 'apt-get -f install' to correct these. > >The following packages have unmet dependencies: > >libcharls1:i386 : Conflicts: libcharls1 but 1.0-5 is installed > >E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. > > My guess is that apt tries to "upgrade" your local package to the one in the > archive. But that won't work, because the archive version lacks the > Multi-Arch field. > > Solution: don't reuse version numbers. :-) That is indeed the solution, the problem is the inverse though: apt isn't detecting that the two versions (the one online and the one in the status file) are different as it isn't considering the Multi-Arch field in this test [in the version you run, apt/experimental does]. So, apt is parsing the online one (without Multi-Arch and hence with the implicit Conflicts) first and recognizes the status file stanza as a duplicate it then records as an other source for this version. You can observe this with "apt-cache policy $pkg". Change something of value (Depends line for example) and apt detects it properly. Remember though that not all tools go to all this trouble: Many have the quite reasonable same version == same package assumption. In other words: Go and change the version number already. ;) Best regards David Kalnischkies P.S.: I say 'apt' here, but I mean 'any tool based on libapt', so you have the same problem regardless of if you use apt-get or a software- center. All bets are off if we talk about non-apt-based tools…
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature