On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 10:10:48 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > * Multi-arch enabled frontends should always use arch qualified names > > as dpkg input for possibly ambiguous package names, to cleanly support > > a distinct native architecture between dpkg and frontend, and make > > possible cross-grading. This means that “M-A: same” need to be always > > arch-qualified on input to dpkg. Non “M-A: same” foreign arch > > packages do not need to be arch-qualified, as their usage on dpkg > > is never ambiguous, there will always be only one installed, but > > they could get arch-qualified, that should never be a problem. > > Yeah, there are cases where it's best to arch-qualify packages... for > example you try to upgrade from a non "M-A: same" to a "M-A: same" > package of another architecture.
That'd fall under the cross-grading case which I mentioned later on. > > * During an upgrade to a multi-arch dpkg using a multi-arch enabled > > frontend, the frontend cannot pass over arch-qualified pkgnames > > to dpkg. It must verify if it can do so first by checking the > > «dpkg --assert-multi-arch» exit code (as per my previous mail). > > I don't know how APT in squeeze behaves but the main problem pointed out > so far is rather that it would use non-arch qualified package to refer to > "M-A: same" packages of the native arch already installed and that dpkg > should not blow up on this. What I read as a problem was that apt cannot use arch-qualified pkgnames unconditionally w/o possibly breaking the upgrade, but using --assert-multi-arch solves that, so besides fixing apt I don't see any other real problem here. Not arch-qualifying always “M-A: same” packages, brings the problems I've stated on this thread. regards, guillem -- 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/20111228022415.ga24...@gaara.hadrons.org
