On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 14:37, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote: > > This proves that we can't make dpkg fail when it gets an unqualified > > package name in input. So in the alternatives that guillem proposed > > we have to pick "pkgname = pkgname:*" so that things keep working > > during upgrade when an old APT drives a new dpkg and that some M-A > > libraries are already installed. > > So, i am able to (on native=amd64): > dpkg --unpack libc6_i386.deb # unpacking libc6:i386 > dpkg --unpack libc6_amd64.deb # unpacking libc6:i386 > dpkg --configure libc6 # configuring libc6:amd64 and libc6:i386 > dpkg --configure libc6:i386 # does this fail?
This last command fails currently, yes. > dpkg --remove libc6 # removing libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64 > ? Your description is correct. > Users will "love" you for this, given that it is completely inconsistent with > what front-ends will understand if the architecture is omitted… I am sympathetic to this, but honestly how many people will be affected by this difference? I mean the "M-A: same" packages that a user has on its system are pulled by way of dependencies mainly and are automatically added/removed by APT, the user is rather unlikely to fiddle with them directly unless he's a developer with a cross-toolchain and in which case he can certainly learn this subtlety, no? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213071529.gf32...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
