Bug#980217: marked as done (ipp-usb: should this be Multi-Arch: foreign?)
Your message dated Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:36:19 +0000
with message-id <E1lDseZ-0004jY-JX@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#980217: fixed in ipp-usb 0.9.17-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #980217,
regarding ipp-usb: should this be Multi-Arch: foreign?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
980217: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980217
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: ipp-usb: should this be Multi-Arch: foreign?
- From: Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 11:19:15 +0000
- Message-id: <YALLs3goxzu+4pg3@espresso.pseudorandom.co.uk>
Package: ipp-usb
Version: 0.9.16-1
Severity: minor
A recent update to wine32:i386 on my amd64 system pulled in libsane1:i386,
which Recommends ipp-usb. Because ipp-usb is Multi-Arch: no, apt
interprets this as wanting to install ipp-usb:i386, which conflicts
with ipp-usb:amd64.
ipp-usb seems to be a daemon (systemd service) that is contacted via
IPC, conceptually similar to avahi-daemon, dbus-daemon or cups - which
hopefully means that it doesn't matter which architecture's ipp-usb
you have, because libsane1:amd64, libsane1:i386 and libsane1:mipsel
all speak the same architecture-independent IPC protocol to communicate
with ipp-usb?
If that's the case, then ipp-usb should be marked Multi-Arch: foreign,
which means that libsane1:i386 Recommends: ipp-usb would be satisfied
by ipp-usb:amd64.
smcv
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: ipp-usb
Source-Version: 0.9.17-2
Done: Didier Raboud <odyx@debian.org>
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ipp-usb, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 980217@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Didier Raboud <odyx@debian.org> (supplier of updated ipp-usb package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 18:02:51 +0100
Source: ipp-usb
Architecture: source
Version: 0.9.17-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Printing Team <debian-printing@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Didier Raboud <odyx@debian.org>
Closes: 980217
Changes:
ipp-usb (0.9.17-2) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Let ipp-usb be Multi-Arch: foreign (Closes: #980217)
Checksums-Sha1:
6f5e364dee0f6f1cdf2680b5dbd413c2d343f202 2226 ipp-usb_0.9.17-2.dsc
55f80b15a771a60080c5ced3fa61e4d1ea1e21a0 3292 ipp-usb_0.9.17-2.debian.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
7056a2184a5cb8932111071e1d91b04eeeabd682da5e79c9c6fe1a19aa0e1550 2226 ipp-usb_0.9.17-2.dsc
f02150b43c0723c1694c1537e11bdf1d47ba1a036eb6443b7d8d0c054dae32e9 3292 ipp-usb_0.9.17-2.debian.tar.xz
Files:
dc1cf87b1ecc74825170703c1c13f08e 2226 comm optional ipp-usb_0.9.17-2.dsc
2770abe566e25f8032d26e45c4e26668 3292 comm optional ipp-usb_0.9.17-2.debian.tar.xz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=9XFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
Reply to: