On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 07:17:22AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi all, > > Quoting Guillem Jover (2014-05-19 00:06:52) > > On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 15:23:42 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:57:27AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:03:50PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:22:00PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > | # apt-cache show libc6:mips > > > […] > > > > | Conflicts: libc6:hppa, libc6:m68k, libc6:mipsel, libc6:powerpc, > > > > libc6:s390, prelink (<= 0.0.20090311-1), tzdata (<< 2007k-1), > > > > tzdata-etch > > > […] > > > > | # apt-cache show libc6:powerpc > > > […] > > > > | Conflicts: libc6:hppa, libc6:m68k, libc6:mips, libc6:mipsel, > > > > libc6:s390, prelink (<= 0.0.20090311-1), tzdata (<< 2007k-1), > > > > tzdata-etch > > > […] > > thank you Aurelien, for this super test case! :) > > > In principle I can see how it might make sense to allow arch-qualified > > self-Conflicts, because that's a pretty specific and direct request in > > the metadata. But then this would be an exception to the exception, and > > mainly and at least for now only for glibc (?), because in theory all > > M-A:same packages should be co-installable across all arches by design. > > Also it would possibly stop being coherent with how versioned > > self-Conflicts would work, once versioned Provides are implemented. It > > would also not work with stable tools. > > Coming from the dose3 side of things, I'd like to ignore the "real problem" > mentioned by Guillem for a bit to ask for your opinion about the right thing > to > do when encountering arch-qualified self-conflicts of a multiarch same package > from a resolver perspective. > > Currently, dose3 has no problem co-installing libc6:mips and libc6:powerpc and > I guess this is in most part because we tested our crossbuild dependency > resolution against apt behaviour and because we never thought of this specific > situation happening.
Indeed, it seems that dose3 ignore the arch qualifier. Just realized that, as dose3 is used by wanna-build to determine if a package is buildable or not, and it currently breaks for some architectures. For example: | gcc-4.8 build-depends on: | - libc6-dev-s390 | libc6-dev-s390 depends on: | - libc6-s390 (= 2.18-6) | gcc-4.8 build-depends on: | - libc6-dev (>= 2.13-5) | libc6-dev depends on: | - libc6 (= 2.18-6) | libc6-s390 conflicts with: | - libc6 > Should resolvers or dependency checkers like dpkg, apt and dose3 continue to > ignore the architecture qualification for self-conflicts of m-a:same packages? > While it is certainly "weird" that a m-a:same package would not be > co-installable for a certain architecture combination, I guess somebody > encoding this conflict would expect that this would work nevertheless. > > What do you think? I think before changing dose3, apt or dpkg, we need to agree on a solution. For now I am going to revert the changes done on the libc side, but it means that the bug is current not fixable. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519085243.ga4...@hall.aurel32.net
