On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 14:37, Raphael Hertzog <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, David Kalnischkies wrote: >> You talk only about output, but the title is "I/O" and i think it's unlikely >> that dpkg has a different understanding of pkgname in output vs input, >> so, you want to tell us that from now on we need to say (native=amd64): >> dpkg --configure libc6:amd64 instead of >> dpkg --configure libc6 , right? >> >> If that's really meant, i am very worried how release upgrades should >> work, given that squeeze tools obviously don't know about this need… > > This proves that we can't make dpkg fail when it gets an unqualified > package name in input. So in the alternatives that guillem proposed > we have to pick "pkgname = pkgname:*" so that things keep working > during upgrade when an old APT drives a new dpkg and that some M-A > libraries are already installed.
So, i am able to (on native=amd64): dpkg --unpack libc6_i386.deb # unpacking libc6:i386 dpkg --unpack libc6_amd64.deb # unpacking libc6:i386 dpkg --configure libc6 # configuring libc6:amd64 and libc6:i386 dpkg --configure libc6:i386 # does this fail? dpkg --remove libc6 # removing libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64 ? Users will "love" you for this, given that it is completely inconsistent with what front-ends will understand if the architecture is omitted… Best regards David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fCkvKso4Y2zQMxkjbjzfWHSn6Lob17Kk+89PqCnuY=v...@mail.gmail.com
