Control: unmerge -1 On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 11:46:54 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 21/08/14 00:21, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 11:25:19 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> Package: dpkg > >> Version: 1.17.11 > >> Severity: wishlist > > > >> Currently M-A:same packages with different versions can't be co-installed. > >> That prevents packages that have been binNMUed in one architecture but not > >> another to be co-installed, e.g. > >> > >> libfoo_1.1-1:i386 > >> libfoo_1.1-1+b1:amd64 > >> > >> or > >> > >> libfoo_1.1-1+b1:i386 > >> libfoo_1.1-1+b2:amd64 > >> > >> Can't be co-installed. > >> > >> This is problematic because packages get binNMU on a subset of > >> architectures > >> very often (whenever it's not needed to binNMU them everywhere). > >> > >> See e.g. #758527. > > > > Yes, extensively discusssed in the mailing lists and already filed, > > this is just a different side of the same assumptions. Merging. > > I saw #684625 but thought it was the old problem that installing +b1:i386 and > +b1:amd64 failed because of the different changelogs, problem that was solved > / > worked around by adding binnmu changelog entries in separate changelogs.
Right, and although both issues prevent co-installation, thinking about it, that issue has not been fixed in dpkg itself, and they might require different fixes. So, yeah I guess it does make sense to have in different bug reports. Umerging. > Anyway, can you provide an update on this? Has there been any progress? I'm still not very comfortable with the possible implications of the proposed solution (i.e. using the source version for comparison). I'll be pondering about it, because I want to resolve most if not all multi-arch issues in dpkg before the freeze, though. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
