Your message dated Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:12:51 -0500
with message-id <20121210161249.0235006871.qww314159@jberkenbilt-linux>
and subject line closing bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #694829,
regarding libtiff4 is not Multi-Arch compatible
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
694829: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694829
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libtiff4
Version: 3.9.6-9
Severity: normal
Installing libtiff4 in a multiarch environment (e.g. i386 on an amd64 native
for me) fails:
Unpacking libtiff4:i386 (from .../libtiff4_3.9.6-9_i386.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libtiff4_3.9.6-9_i386.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite shared '/usr/share/doc/libtiff4/changelog.Debian.gz',
which is different from other instances of package libtiff4:i386
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.6.4 (SMP w/12 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages libtiff4 depends on:
ii libc6 2.13-37
ii libjbig0 2.0-2
ii libjpeg8 8d-1
ii multiarch-support 2.13-37
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.7.dfsg-13
libtiff4 recommends no packages.
libtiff4 suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm glad my suggestion on where to look for the libtiff4 multiarch
problem was helpful. As there does not appear to be an actual problem
relating to libtiff4, I will close this bug. If the issue comes up
again, I will dig deeper. It's possible that there could be an issue
relating to use of symbolic links for /usr/share/doc in some of the tiff
packages. That would be another thing to check.
--
Jay Berkenbilt <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
