On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:33:19PM +0200, Thibaut Girka wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >> > Your patch actually also makes libc0.1-dev, libc0.3-dev and libc6.1-dev > >> > m-a: same. You should also check for files in these packages. > >> > >> Oh, I didn't know about that. > >> > >> libc0.1-dev is ok. > >> libc0.3-dev is ok since it's only available for one architecture. > >> libc6.1-dev is ok too. > >> > > > > Either we have to make them conflict one with another (that is > > libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev, libc0.3-dev with libc6-dev, etc.), > > Note that this holds whether or not these packages are "M-A: same".
No, because these packages are architecture specific, so they are not co-installable. For example libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev might have conflicting files, but you can't install libc0.1-dev (kfreebsd-amd64 only) together with libc6-dev, unless they are marked "M-A: same". > > or we have to check for these packages as if they were a single one. > > This means they would need to have the same name (probably libc-dev) on > all architectures. > Yes, thinking about that, either we want to make it fully multiarch, in that case all libc*-dev needs to be renamed to the same name, or we should add conflicts to prevent someone trying to install for example libc6.1-dev along with libc6-dev. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
