Hi Mike, On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:40:59 -0400, Michael Gilbert <mgilb...@debian.org> wrote: > We've been getting a few bug reports from users attempting to install > multiarch wine who have yet to manually enable multiarch itself. > Obviously that is a failure on their part, and is easily correctable. > However, I wonder if we can't make such migrations a bit more > straightforward?
I fail to see how it is a failure on the part of the users. How are they supposed to know that wine is now a multiarch-only package on *-amd64? One might expect unstable-tracking users to find out for themselves, but what will happen when users upgrade from Squeeze? We could ask for a specific mention in the release notes, but we'll still end up with bug reports from users who haven't read them... > In particular, I filed a bug against dpkg requesting that it produce > more informative error messages in these cases [0], but I wonder if a > part of the solution shouldn't be more automated or at least presented > at a higher level through apt/aptitude, etc? Having dpkg produce more informative error messages won't help users upgrading with apt-get or aptitude. I just rebuilt a Squeeze amd64 system to try the upgrade, and the only solutions offered are either to hold the wine package, or remove it - so dpkg never gets a chance to attempt to process the upgrade. > Also, limitations in the existing testing migration tools are making > wine not considered for wheezy, since those tools don't check whether > dependencies for 'Multi-Arch: allowed' packages are satisfied by > packages on other architectures. Short of packaging Wine64, might it be possible to have wine-bin on amd64 and kfreebsd-amd64 be a dummy package containing only a wine script which provides appropriate instructions, registered as a very-low-priority alternative using the existing infrastructure? Regards, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
