On 2024-02-06 Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > Package: libselinux1t64
[...]> This looks fairly innocuous. We create a minimal sid chroot and install > libselinux1t64 using apt. What could possibly go wrong? Well, apt thinks > that it would be a good idea to avoid coinstalling breaking packages and > first removes libselinux1 before proceeding to install libselinux1t64. > Unfortunately, libselinux1 is transitively essential and dpkg links it, [...] > both dpkg and tar are now broken. This is pretty bad. To make matters > worse, the situation arises from the combination of Breaks + Provides [...] Hello, color me stupid but isn't this fishy? Package: libselinux1t64 Replaces: libselinux1 Provides: libselinux1 (= 3.5-2.1~exp1) Breaks: libselinux1 (<< 3.5-2.1~exp1) Afaiui libselinux1t64 must not fullfill dpkg 1.22.4's dependency on "libselinux1 (>= 3.1~)". dpkg needs to be rebuilt and the rebuilt version gets a dep on "libselinux1t64 (>= 3.5)". Will ${t64:Provides} stop expanding to "libselinux1 = ${binary:Version for real t64-builds? (The ones in experimental are not.) If that is case this bug and this way of testing does not make sense. Otherwise the plan looks flawed. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'