Your message dated Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:29:54 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line libpam-modules:amd64: Package can not be re-installed when
other architecture is installed
has caused the Debian Bug report #684703,
regarding libpam-modules:amd64: Package can not be re-installed when other
architecture is installed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
684703: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684703
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libpam-modules
Version: 1.1.3-7.1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
libpam-modules cannot be reinstalled when it is also installed in another
architecture. For example, on my amd64 system with i386 as foreign
architecture:
$ sudo aptitude install libpam-modules:i386
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libpam-modules:i386
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/338 kB of archives. After unpacking 770 kB will be used.
Preconfiguring packages ...
Selecting previously unselected package libpam-modules:i386.
(Reading database ... 227160 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking libpam-modules:i386 (from .../libpam-modules_1.1.3-7.1_i386.deb) ...
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Setting up libpam-modules:i386 (1.1.3-7.1) ...
$ sudo aptitude reinstall libpam-modules:i386
The following packages will be REINSTALLED:
libpam-modules libpam-modules:i386
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 0 not
upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/686 kB of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used.
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 227203 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libpam-modules:amd64 1.1.3-7.1 (using .../libpam-
modules_1.1.3-7.1_amd64.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libpam-modules:amd64 ...
Preparing to replace libpam-modules:i386 1.1.3-7.1 (using .../libpam-
modules_1.1.3-7.1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libpam-modules:i386 ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libpam-
modules_1.1.3-7.1_i386.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite shared '/etc/security/limits.conf', which is different
from other instances of package libpam-modules:i386
dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe)
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libpam-modules_1.1.3-7.1_i386.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
A package failed to install. Trying to recover:
Setting up libpam-modules:amd64 (1.1.3-7.1) ...
All this is on a completely updated testing installation. This seems to be a
general problem with conffiles in MA: same packages, even if these files do not
differ between the architectures. See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640499 .
I think this may actually be RC, but since it only happens in multiarch setups
I was not sure whether that would be appropriate.
Kind regards,
Ralf
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages libpam-modules:amd64 depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.44
ii libc6 2.13-33
ii libdb5.1 5.1.29-5
ii libpam-modules-bin 1.1.3-7.1
ii libpam0g 1.1.3-7.1
ii libselinux1 2.1.9-5
libpam-modules:amd64 recommends no packages.
libpam-modules:amd64 suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is actually a bug in dpkg, not in your package [1]. Sorry for the noise.
Kind regards,
Ralf
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684776
--- End Message ---
