Hi Helmut, On 2025-01-06 12:08, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Package: libc6-dev-i386,libc6-dev-s390 > Severity: normal > Justification: undeclared cross architecture file conflict cannot be > experienced using apt > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: fileconflict > User: debian-am...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: amd64 > User: debian-s...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: s390x > > Hi Aurelien, > > while looking into non-amd64 /usr-move issues, I noticed that > technically speaking libc6-dev-i386 and libc6-dev-s390 have an > undeclared file conflict. Since libc6-dev-s390 depends on libc6-s390 and > that happens to conflict with libc6-i386, you cannot experience this > conflict when using apt. Technically though, you may dpkg --unpack a > libc6-dev-s390 on a system that has libc6-dev-i386 unpacked and doing so > fails.
I can confirm that. That said I am a bit surprised that you only mention these two. For instance libc6-dev-s390 and libc6-dev-i386 also both conflict with libc6-dev-mipsn32. I guess there are many more conflicts on ports architectures, but I guess your QA tools only look at the main archive. > I suggest that libc6-dev-i386 declares "Conflicts: libc6-dev-s390" to > make this explicit. It can reasonably be mutual. The main benefit of > this change is helping QA tools that diagnose undeclared file conflicts. Yes, it's something possible, however given the above, I wonder if we should just map the libc6-$arch conflicts to the libc6-dev-$arch ones. It's sometimes overkill when there are no real file conflicts, but that's probably easier to not miss any conflict and that doesn't break anything either. Anyway, as you pointed above they are already not co-installable so it doesn't break anything. Cheers Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
