Your message dated Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:24:34 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#729066: dpkg accepts architectures that does not exist
has caused the Debian Bug report #729066,
regarding dpkg accepts architectures that does not exist
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.)


-- 
729066: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729066
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.12
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?
   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
   * What was the outcome of this action?
   * What outcome did you expect instead?

*** End of the template - remove these lines ***

Hi I first apologize for my shortcomings with the English I hope you understand
me
when i run an apt-get update It show this error
Imposible obtener http://security.debian.org/dists/wheezy/updates/Release
Unable to find expected entry 'contrib/binary-i386dpkg/Packages' in Release
file (Wrong sources.list entry or malformed file)
Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used
instead.

  At the end I realized that there is no architecture call i386dpkg in the
Release file
this architecture guess that I had mistakenly added
dpkg --add-architecture i386dpkg
The result is the above warnin and that not all package lists are downloaded
fron repositories
I think dpkg should not accept architectures that there are not
Nothing but thank all the debian team effort and thank you very much



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.2
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.11-6.dmz.1-liquorix-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii  libbz2-1.0   1.0.6-4
ii  libc6        2.13-38
ii  liblzma5     5.1.1alpha+20120614-2
ii  libselinux1  2.1.9-5
ii  tar          1.26+dfsg-0.1
ii  zlib1g       1:1.2.7.dfsg-13

dpkg recommends no packages.

Versions of packages dpkg suggests:
ii  apt  0.9.7.9

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi!

On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 14:55:39 +0100, Félix Pizarro wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.16.12
> Severity: important

> when i run an apt-get update It show this error
> Imposible obtener http://security.debian.org/dists/wheezy/updates/Release
> Unable to find expected entry 'contrib/binary-i386dpkg/Packages' in Release
> file (Wrong sources.list entry or malformed file)
> Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used
> instead.
> 
>   At the end I realized that there is no architecture call i386dpkg in the
> Release file
> this architecture guess that I had mistakenly added
> dpkg --add-architecture i386dpkg
> The result is the above warnin and that not all package lists are downloaded
> fron repositories
> I think dpkg should not accept architectures that there are not

While I agree something like this would be nice to avoid this kind of
situations, the problem is that it's not possible or it would be very
undesirable.

dpkg does not have any knowledge of what architectures are available on
the remote server being used, there might be known architectures not
present there anyway. dpkg would need to be updated every time a new
architecture is added, or even for privately created architectures,
which would be very cumbersome. This would be too restrictive.

Given the above, I'll just close this bug report.

Thanks,
Guillem

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to