Hi! On Fri, 2016-01-01 at 00:59:31 +0000, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Diederik de Haas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm adding my info to this bug report as I would have choosen the same > > title, even though the steps/behavior aren't the same. > > they are actually different situations. > > > Earlier today I have reported bug #805132 > > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=805132) with title > > "glx-alternative-nvidia:amd64 installs update-glx:armhf as dependency". > > As you can see by the title the arch where a package came from is > > critical, but especially that info was missing from the Package list > > section. The relevant part of that bug report (for this bug): > > > > Versions of packages glx-alternative-nvidia depends on: > > ii glx-alternative-mesa 0.7.1 > > ii glx-diversions 0.7.1 > > ii update-glx 0.7.1 > > > > The maintainer of that package was able to confirm this behavior. > > that list is the package dependencies as defined by > > $ dpkg --status glx-alternative-nvidia | grep Depends > Depends: update-glx (= 0.7.1), glx-diversions (= 0.7.1), glx-alternative-mesa > > which are the ones reportbug enlist.
Hmm, this might or might not be the correct information. Because the dependencies of a package depen on its architecture, and any Multi-Arch markings, so simply dumping anything installed from the status file that matches the package name of a Depends might give false information. A way to solve this could be to check which packages satisfy those dependencies using one of the Dpkg perl modules. Thanks, Guillem _______________________________________________ Reportbug-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reportbug-maint
