Bug#683786: apt-get cross build dependency resolution of arch:all, m-a:none packages
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:36:18AM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> first of all: Thanks for the detailed report!
>
> Thank you for your quick reply! I was stunned by the nearly 1000 open
> bugs for apt so I feared I would never get a reply to this :D
Yeah, unfortunately APT hasn't that many active contributors to deal with
all the incoming work and as it is that way for years work kinda piles up
and especially the housekeeping in the bugtracker falls of the plate. :(
Luck helps of course, but detailed reports make it a lot easier to deal with.
That said, being a GSoC student with a MultiArch project helps, too,
given that MultiArch in APT was my project two years ago. ;)
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de> wrote:
>> The fix is simply to add a ", false" to the end of the parameter list
>> on the previously mentioned line. Bonuspoints for adding on line 3007
>> to the check if the package exists also a check if the package has at
>> least one version ("|| Pkg->VersionList == 0").
>
> Then Patrick McDermott deserves those points as he told me the exact
> same fix half an hour before your email :)
>
> The downside is, that this change seems to break other dependency
> resolutions. For example sed build depends on libselinux-dev which is
> provided by libselinux1-dev.
Ah, sure. I should have seen that… Make that check a
|| (Pkg->VersionList == 0 && Pkg->ProvidesList == 0)
>> > Maybe there is a connection to bug#666772 ?
>>
>> No, and given that dpkg-maintainers haven't agreed to this plan yet,
>> i guess it can be considered a "no", but Steve wanted to pursue this further.
>> After all, it is not that important for wheezy, as APT and dpkg are far from
>> the only places needing support for it, so it will only work out for jessie -
>> if at all anyway (as other tools have no M-A support at all in wheezy).
>
> Thanks for the info! I would also not like the proposed change to be
> introduced in Debian. Having this exception only for dependency
> resolution of cross build dependencies but nothing else doesnt seem to
> be the right thing to do.
Depends (pun intended), cross building has already a special ruleset so
one more or less isn't that bad and changing a big bunch of packages can
be quiet a bit of work - beside that Steve proposed it and who wanna talk
against the lord of multi-arch? ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: