The original bug reporter might have been not clear enough...
If you compare with the lines below: dpkg -c lib32bz2-1.0_1.0.5-4_amd64.deb | grep libbz2.so.1 -rw-r--r-- root/root 70428 2010-01-20 00:52 ./usr/lib32/libbz2.so.1.0.4 lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2010-01-20 00:52 ./usr/lib32/libbz2.so.1.0 -> libbz2.so.1.0.4 you will see that the binary package lib32bz2-1.0 has the symlink.
But it doesn't have the /usr/lib32/libbz2.so.1 symlink, which is crucial here. BTW, the lib64bz2-1.0 package has the very same problem.
-- Jakub Wilk
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
