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

Bug#614298: multiarch: apt-get remove of foreign-arch package removes wrong one

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:20:03PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 22:48, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > Feel free to downgrade the bug severity if you think that's appropriate; but
> > this is definitely a bug that needs to be fixed before we can roll out
> > multiarch. :-)

> As it blocks testing transition and "only" breaks a usecase which can be
> exercised only with a non-released version of dpkg i think important is
> better suited.

Ok. :)

> Its grave for multiarch, but given that my last information from the
> beginning of february is that dpkg maintainers are discussing how the
> commandline interface will be for specifying which architecture of the
> package is meant and as i don't know what the outcome of this discussion is
> i hope its relatively reasonable that i haven't implemented it so far. ;)

I think it's clear that $pkg:$arch is the correct way to unambiguously
specify a foreign-arch package on the command line to dpkg.  The only open
point of discussion is how to interpret package names when they *don't* have
an architecture specified.  So I don't think there's any risk that you will
need to reimplement this differently later.

> P.S.: I am still not too sure what to do with pkg:all + MultiArch flag.
> In general, i would appreciate if it could be added to the spec in more
> detail as aptitude/cupt/whatever will hit the same problem at the time
> they implement it…

I'm definitely happy to expand on the spec to add any details that you think
are missing.  Can you tell me what it is that should be expanded on here?  I
think the current language about "Architecture: all packages will be treated
as equivalent to packages of the native architecture for all dependency
resolution" is pretty unambiguous, and I've corrected the problem that we
were saying Multi-Arch wasn't allowed for Architecture: all packages.  What
else should I add here?  (Sorry, I'm probably suffering from author's bias
here where I think what I've written is perfectly clear when it isn't clear
at all. :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: