On 09/11/14 08:38, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 06:11:45PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: >> On 07/11/14 16:15, Ralf Treinen wrote: >>> There is only one package in the "each" category, and this is a false >>> positive due to multiarch: lib32nss-mdns, which exists only on amd64 >>> (this is why it shows up in the each category) and depends on an i386 >>> package, which is deliberate in this case. >> >> That's a transitional hack [...] >> (I'm surprised the wine* family of packages don't get similar results >> though - that's where I stole the idea from.) > > can you be more specific? Why do you think that there may be an issue with > the wine packages?
I thought I remembered that wine:amd64 depended on wine32 which is only available on i386, but in fact it depends on wine64|wine32, so QA tools are happy with the situation. It seems a little odd that wine64 would be the preferred dependency, since I would guess that most users of Wine are still more interested in running 32-bit Windows software (I've certainly never wanted to run Win64 stuff), but presumably the Wine maintainers have done the research and determined that upgrades from wheezy behave acceptably. S -- 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/5460994c.7020...@debian.org