Bug#722880: apt: Apt fails to solve some dependencies in a multiarch scenario.
Package: apt
Version: 0.9.9.4
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
I'm working in a multiarch scenario where amd64 is the architecture of my
machine and armhf is a foreign architecture. I found two cases where
apt fails to solve the dependencies of packages even where a solution exist.
First case: I was trying to crossbuild a source package A that build-depends
package B:armhf where the build architecture is amd64 and the host
architecture is armhf. Package B is multiarch: foreign. Apt install package
B:armhf instead of B:amd64 even B being a multiarch: foreign package. IMHO, apt
should install B:amd64 to solve the build-dependencies instead of B:armhf.
Second case: I was trying to crossbuild a source package A that build-depends
package B:any that depends package C:all where the build architecture is amd64
and the host architecture is armhf. Package B is multiarch: same and Package C
is multiarch: foreign. Apt fails to solve the dependencies because it tries to
install package C:armhf instead of Package C:all which is a multiarch: foreign
package. IMHO, apt should install Package C:all without returning error.
I'm not usually with reporting bugs. Please, be nice :-) .
Thanks,
Gustavo Alkmim
-- Package-specific info:
-- (no /etc/apt/preferences present) --
-- (/etc/apt/sources.list present, but not submitted) --
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii debian-archive-keyring 2012.4
ii gnupg 1.4.14-1
ii libapt-pkg4.12 0.9.9.4
ii libc6 2.17-7
ii libgcc1 1:4.8.1-2
ii libstdc++6 4.8.1-2
apt recommends no packages.
Versions of packages apt suggests:
pn apt-doc <none>
ii aptitude 0.6.8.2-1
ii dpkg-dev 1.16.10
ii python-apt 0.8.9
ii synaptic 0.80.2
ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2
-- no debconf information
Reply to: