Your message dated Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:55:28 +0000 with message-id <e1jgbm8-0009uj...@fasolo.debian.org> and subject line Bug#947438: Removed package(s) from unstable has caused the Debian Bug report #914097, regarding libomp5-7: not multiarch compatible 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 ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 914097: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=914097 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: libomp5-7 Severity: wishlist Dear Maintainer, I have a number of amd64 machines on which I have perfectly working multiarch installations, namely main distro amd64, run time libraries in i386 versions as well, a bunch of i386 applications. The libomp5-7 packages, both amd64 and i386 versions, were pulled in as dependencies by the non-free libmkl packages (but that's not really relevant). Unfortunately, since libomp5-7 installs the actual libs under the directory /usr/lib/llvm-7/lib, both amd64 and i386 versions try to install their respective different versions of the library with exactly the same file name. Would it be complicated to install just the runtime libraries under the standard multiarch-compatible /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu and /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu directories, so that they can be both simultaneously installed without conflicts? This would be desirable for any runtime library, and in particular one which is likely to be pulled in by anything compiled by llvm. I will happily provide help with this, if needed and requested. Thanks in advance, best regards. *** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate *** * What led up to the situation? * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or ineffective)? * What was the outcome of this action? * What outcome did you expect instead? *** End of the template - remove these template lines *** -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (401, 'unstable'), (10, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.18.10-jak (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=it_IT.utf8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to it_IT.UTF-8), LANGUAGE=it_IT,en_EN (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to it_IT.UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Version: 1:7.0.1-12+rm Dear submitter, as the package llvm-toolchain-7 has just been removed from the Debian archive unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports. We are sorry that we couldn't deal with your issue properly. For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/947438 The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/. Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the earliest. This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)
--- End Message ---
