I'd like to understand if my xapt experience should be considered expected or not. I'm running xapt version 2.2.18~bpo60+1 on Squeeze amd64.
A month or two ago, I used xapt to install libxml2-dev and libcurl4-openssl-dev so I could cross build for armel. Then today, I used xapt to install libfcgi-dev as it's now an additional dependency for the app I'm building. Month or two ago: > 'sudo xapt -a armel libxml2-dev libcurl4-openssl-dev' and today: > 'sudo xapt -a armel libfcgi-dev' It ended up that then native apt didn't like the resulting conflict of libc6-dev-armel-cross and libc6-armel-cross, as they ended up at different versions with an exact version dependency: The following packages have unmet dependencies: libc6-dev-armel-cross: Depends: libc6-armel-cross (= 2.11.3-2) but 2.11.3-3 is installed. I "fixed" this situation by rerunning > 'sudo xapt -a armel libxml2-dev and libcurl4-openssl-dev' which pulled in the newer versions of a few different things, one being the libc6-dev packages. I assume I could have also pulled in libc6-dev with a > 'sudo xapt -a armel libc6-dev' but I did not try that. Is my experience with xapt considered expected in that xapt'ing one dev package may pull in newer others and thus break version dependencies? Even though I assume they're not really broken (ie: everything is still compatible), just that dpkg thinks they are. It's not a huge deal if it is, I just want to understand so I can document it for the future. I couldn't easily find existing documentation on this condition. Thanks, Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
