Re: Bug#165825: apt: wants to upgrade dictionaries-common to same version
On 21 Oct 2002, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > Oops, right, looks like the actual package is missing an Architecture:
> > field (!). Given that #165785 seems to be the same problem (oops,
> > should have checked...) and that the md5sum matches, this is
> > presumably a bug in it.
> Hm, wait, that's not it... the header is present in the archive, just
> not in dpkg's status file, but that seems to be normal(?). The only
> other difference I see is whitespace in Conflicts:, though, so I'm not
> sure what's up after all. Sigh.
Ugh. Why do people keep doing this.. The problem is the unusual formatting
of the spacing in the conflicts line and it's extreme length. The
dictionary-common package should probably use the cannonical
representation for the dependencies.
Jasno
Reply to: