Hi, On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (also, btw, I couldn't find the daily DOSE runs linked from > tttps://qa.debian.org/dose - did I miss it or is it missing?) yes, you did miss something :-) first link on the page: "Non-installable packages" then you choose among the scenarios you are interested in, like "unstable:main only" leads you to https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html > On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Wookey wrote: > > +++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]: > > > sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively > > > rebuilding all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent > > > version numbers across architectures before releasing Jessie? > > I don't know, but I think there should be. Thank you for bringing this > > up. As you say, currently this is the only way to make multiarch > > co-installability work properly. > > Ralf, does DOSE already detect such inconsistencies or how hard would it be > to add support for that? I am not sure what precisely is needed here : 1) if it is about detecting M-A=same packages with different version numbers across different architectures : we currently do not detect this. The dose library could be use to parse the different Packages files and then detect these case, but IMHO this would be an overkill. A simple perl/python script would do the job, or possibly an integration into (not-dose)-debcheck. 2) if you ask about co-installablity of packages with the same name but different architectictures (and which are M-A=same) : this is a completely different (and much more interesting) question. Since dose is now multi-arch aware we can do this, but there are some questions to discuss about the precise scenario. Is this what you meant ? -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141105171217.ga7...@seneca.home.org