(you may want to CC maintainers on reassign as they otherwise only get the easily missed Processed mail, see dev-ref §5.8.3.2)
>> Notice: Skipping acquire of configured file 'main/binary-i386/Packages' as >> repository 'https://packages.microsoft.com/debian/13/prod trixie InRelease' >> doesn't support architecture 'i386' […] > No. Apt should stop producing warnings for repositories that do not > carry an architecture that is not enabled on the system. (But it is enabled on the system ???) > The fact that apt produces a useless > warning that the architecture isn't supported is a bug in apt, not > extrepo. Well, the idea is to warn the user that this repository might very well be causing problems as the repository is not intended to be used with i386. It e.g. wont provide M-A:same variants for it possibly causing a removal cascade or blocking [security] upgrades indefinitely and other (not so) subtil problems users will attribute to apt and/or MultiArch as nobody said there will be problems otherwise. (appart from the general implicit warning about repositories in general being able to cause a lot of problems, that everyone ignores of course) A user can avoid this warning (which is an interactive notice only) by not requesting the architecture as you noticed already, which amounts to a "I will keep the pieces if that breaks" admission. A repository can avoid it by "suppporting" the architecture – which doesn't mean they have to build all their packages for i386. In fact, they don't need to build any package, not even ship a binary-i386/Packages file – all apt cares about is that the Architectures field in the Release file contains 'i386'. What that means is that the repository actually supports being used on i386 – as in, they won't break M-A systems or if they do they at least consider it a bug: They e.g. can and will ship M-A: same variants of libraries they overtake or an M-A:foreign provider will actually support being called by the foreign i386 packages installed on the user system. So, I am considering this a bug in the repositories. (On a more practical note, the code has no idea why i386 ended up being configured for acquire, so it has to do something, for the possibility of it being an explicit Architectures-Add thing…) Best regards David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
