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 <didi.deb...@cknow.org> 
> 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
Reportbug-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reportbug-maint

Reply via email to