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

Bug#951915: marked as done (wine32: Nearly impossible to install the package)

Your message dated Thu, 19 Mar 2020 23:15:49 -0400
with message-id <CANTw=MO+eVuz8TLUiJH_VeWCT1QK6cU-UbDYhvcVydsXRwoL4Q@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#951915: wine32: Nearly impossible to install the package
has caused the Debian Bug report #951915,
regarding wine32: Nearly impossible to install the package
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.)


-- 
951915: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=951915
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: wine32
Version: 5.0-3
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,

*** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?

dpkg --add-architecture i386 && apt-get update && apt install wine32

to get Wine32 to have Windows 32bits

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?

My solution (horrible):
mv libpixman-1-0 libavc1394-0 libiec61883-0 libsamplerate0 libpciaccess0 ~/doc64/
mv libpixman libavc1394 libdv4 libjpeg62-turbo libiec61883 libsamplerate libpsl5 libpciaccess libshine3 libxss1 libxshmfence1 ~/doc64

it works

   * What was the outcome of this action?

10 dependencies do not want to install: the install tries to replace
the /usr/share/doc/package directory, to change the changelog.Debian.gz
and, of course, refuses. I guess changelog.Debian.gz is different
between i386 and amd64.

   * What outcome did you expect instead?

Should find some solution to make both arch go togheher.

*** End of the template - remove these template lines ***

An alternate idea? Should I reportbug to each of these packages?

Regards


-- Package-specific info:
/usr/bin/wine points to /usr/bin/wine-stable.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages wine32 depends on:
ii  libc6    2.29-10
ii  libwine  5.0-3

Versions of packages wine32 recommends:
ii  wine [wine]  5.0-3

Versions of packages wine32 suggests:
pn  wine32-preloader  <none>

Versions of packages wine32 is related to:
pn  dxvk                     <none>
pn  dxvk-wine32-development  <none>
pn  dxvk-wine64-development  <none>
ii  fonts-wine               5.0-3
ii  wine [wine]              5.0-3
ii  wine32                   5.0-3
pn  wine64                   <none>

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:45 PM Michael Gilbert wrote:
> This should only be a problem if the i386 and amd64 packages have
> different version numbers [0].  For the packages you list, this is
> currently not the case for bullseye.

Given no extra feedback, I assume this was caused by local
modifications to your system.

Best wishes,
Mike

--- End Message ---
Reply to: