On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 11:17 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:41:31AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Package: popularity-contest > > Version: 1.53 > > Severity: important > > > > The cron job failed today with: > > > > /etc/cron.daily/popularity-contest: > > Package `linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64' is not installed. > > Use dpkg --info (= dpkg-deb --info) to examine archive files, > > and dpkg --contents (= dpkg-deb --contents) to list their contents. > > > > I have the amd64 build of linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64 installed on an i386 > > system, and dpkg requires this to be named as > > 'linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64:amd64'. > > Hello Ben, > > Did you try to do > dpkg -L linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64:amd64
That works, why? > > I think popularity-contest should query the architecture of each package > > and when it is not 'all' or the native architecture then add the > > architecture-qualification when naming the package to 'dpkg -L'. This > > would retain backward-compatibility with older versions of dpkg, though > > maybe not where a foreign package has been installed with > > --force-architecture. > > Yes, but currently this does not work, see bug #659782, which this bug is > probably a duplicate. Well, it is perhaps a bug in dpkg that architecture-qualification is required for a foreign package that is not 'multi-arch: same'. But what about foreign 'multi-arch: same' packages? I would expect dpkg to always require arch-qualification for them, even if there is a single installed version and it's foreign (e.g. for cross-development). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
