On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 04:05:43 +0200 Bertram Felgenhauer <in...@gmx.de> wrote:
Luca Boccassi wrote: [...] > I don't think this is something we should facilitate by default or > spend any energy on. > > You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any good reason why > anybody would need to run a polkitd:i386 on an otherwise amd64 system. > It's not what happens by default if you have i386 enabled and you type > 'apt install polkitd' or so.I agree that there isn't a good reason, and I'm not sure how I ended up in that situation in the first place (the log files don't go back far enough). One thing I do know is that polkitd:i386 was marked as automatically installed, so I almost certainly did not make that decision deliberately. My speculation is that this happened while satisfying dependencies for a third party i386 application. That meant installing required 32 bit libraries, and one of them must have come with a polkitd dependency, and the i386 version was selected because I was installing an i386 package. Anyway, I reported this because I assumed that pinning packages to the native architecture was easy, so it would be justified even for this (hopefully!) rare scenario... apparently that's not the case.
As mentioned, unfortunately there is no way to express this dependency in a strait forward way.
I've contemplated dropping the Multi-Arch: foreign notation in systemd and maybe also for policykit-1.
Is there a valid use case where we need/want a foreign systemd/policykit-1? Michael
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
