David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree here. If I understand correctly, you are saying that it would >> be best if a dependency >> >> Package: a >> Depends: phonon-backend >> >> should only be satisfied by a package from another architecture with >> >> Package: b >> Provides: phonon-backend >> >> if package b also has Multi-Arch: foreign. > > Yeap, that is what I would expect and it is what APT currently does. > This thread is a try to understand why dpkg does it differently. > aka: Valid reasons or just a bug? Sounds like just a bug. [...] >> most sensible to make this dependency only satisfiable by non-virtual >> packages. > > I can't follow on that one as if you are referring to the example above > we suddenly have no dependencies left which could be satisfied by virtuals. > So you probably lost me somewhere. Yes, you have lost me, too. :) Let me try again. I believe that a dependency like this: Depends: package-foo:i386 is referring to a specific, concrete, non-virtual package package-foo and it doesn't make sense to allow this to be satisfied by virtual packages. I understand that neither dpkg nor apt works that way currently, but that is what I think the right behavior would be. We can talk about Conflicts later. Let's get this part ironed out first. Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120717164633.GH3071@burratino