On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > 2/ We can't invent the value to put in Architecture > > It seems likely this has been covered before, but just in case: why > not put in the native architecture for already-installed, ancient > packages?
It could be Architecture: all instead of the native architecture. And some packages might have been installed with --force-architecture. > > dselect update sometimes does depending on the "method" configured. > > > > Right now, it serves no purpose for apt-get to update the available file. > > Actually I'm a bit puzzled by the behavior. sync-available (from > dctrl-tools) and the apt method's "update" script call > "apt-cache dumpavail" to write a new available file and > "dpkg --update-avail" to use it, ignoring the old one. So why are > people needing to run "dpkg --clear-avail"? Because people don't use dselect and the available file just keeps a log of formerly installed packages in that case. And the "ftp" method of dselect runs --clear-avail optionnaly and uses --merge-avail. > Would it be possible in the long term for dpkg to stop caring about > "available" altogether (leaving it to dselect)? Yes, it's more or less the plan. We've just changed dpkg to not parse/write it for most of the commands and I wanted to discuss with guillem why he kept it for plain package install (archivefiles() still passes the available flag to modstatdb_init). See commits fb49e131ef32039277c538f759ab19c1ff22e8fd, 9c01b373009ac462afbdb9375abd2c7b9abc19d5. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
