On 13 September 2012 23:17, Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2012-09-11 15:36:15 +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> [ David Kalnischkies ] >> * handle packages without a mandatory architecture (debian-policy §5.3) >> by introducing a pseudo-architecture 'none' so that the small group of >> users with these packages can get right of them without introducing too >> much hassle for other users (Closes: #686346)
> Package 'docbook-mathml' is not installed, so not removed. Did you mean > 'docbook-mathml:none'? This error highlights something: the lack of architecture should not extend the fullname like that and interfere with locating the package. ? Is there a reason for introducing this pseudo-arch. rather than using “I->Pkg.Arch() == 0”? > so that docbook-mathml would depend on a package that has been > uninstalled. However if I do this, the system doesn't notice > this broken dependency, as if docbook-mathml were not installed > at all (so that I don't need an "apt-get -f install"). Interesting. Perhaps apt is not aware of the arch-less package now. Compare: $ apt-cache policy docbook-mathml $ apt-cache policy docbook-mathml:* $ dpkg -s docbook-mathml $ dpkg -C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
