Bug#770301: dpkg: fails to install second arch of Multi-Arch:same packages with Provides/Conflicts/Replaces:virtualpackage
Package: dpkg Version: 1.17.21 Severity: important User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: multiarch Hi, dpkg fails to configure a second architecture of this package if a first architecture is already installed: Package: libbabl-dev Multi-Arch: same Source: babl Version: 0.1.10-2 Replaces: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Provides: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Breaks: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Both apt and aptitude consider the package to be installable, but dpkg fails to configure it: # dpkg --configure --pending dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libbabl-dev:amd64: libbabl-dev:i386 (0.1.10-2) breaks libbabl-0.0-0-dev and is installed. libbabl-dev:amd64 (0.1.10-2) provides libbabl-0.0-0-dev. dpkg: error processing package libbabl-dev:amd64 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: libbabl-dev:amd64 Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770282: Acknowledgement (po: zh_CN.po, programs translation update)
Hi, Oh no, my mail agent just send this mail for twice, likely due to the network issue... I think I can just close the duplicated bug #770282, and left the #770280 for maintainer. Sorry for that. -- Regards, C.D.Luminate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770301: dpkg: fails to install second arch of Multi-Arch:same packages with Provides/Conflicts/Replaces:virtualpackage
Hi! On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:43:15 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Package: dpkg Version: 1.17.21 Severity: important User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: multiarch dpkg fails to configure a second architecture of this package if a first architecture is already installed: Package: libbabl-dev Multi-Arch: same Source: babl Version: 0.1.10-2 Replaces: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Provides: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Breaks: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Both apt and aptitude consider the package to be installable, but dpkg fails to configure it: # dpkg --configure --pending dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libbabl-dev:amd64: libbabl-dev:i386 (0.1.10-2) breaks libbabl-0.0-0-dev and is installed. libbabl-dev:amd64 (0.1.10-2) provides libbabl-0.0-0-dev. dpkg: error processing package libbabl-dev:amd64 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: libbabl-dev:amd64 This is expected behavior in dpkg. Conflics/Breaks/Replaces get an implicit any arch qualifier, so those make the dependency unsatisfiable due to the Provides. So if there's no other issue besides this, I'm just going to be closing this report. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770301: dpkg: fails to install second arch of Multi-Arch:same packages with Provides/Conflicts/Replaces:virtualpackage
On 2014-11-20 16:51, Guillem Jover wrote: This is expected behavior in dpkg. Conflics/Breaks/Replaces get an implicit any arch qualifier, so those make the dependency unsatisfiable due to the Provides. If it's intentional, this is fine. So if there's no other issue besides this, I'm just going to be closing this report. Should this rather be reassigned to apt/aptitude to not resolve these packages as co-installable at the first place? Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770280: po: zh_CN.po, programs translation update
Hi! On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 07:18:33 +, lumin wrote: Package: dpkg Version: 1.17.22 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch,l10n I have scaned translatioin again, referring the .c source files of dpkg, to enhance my translation quality. Now my former questions are resolved naturally[1]. Only one question left now, see following. Ok, so I guess your post on the debian-dpkg list does not need a reply anymore? I had pending to go over it before the call for translations. this patch includes: * [mainly] improve expression * correct a few sentences according to .c file * restore some words to english (e.g. control which directly refers the file namded control when packaging) * accord the translation of some terms Ok, perfect! Then let's talk about the only fuzzy sentence I added manually, and try to finish it: --- 2705 #: src/enquiry.c:440 2706 #, fuzzy 2707 msgid versioned Provides 2708 msgstr 版本（提供/要求/假设/覆盖） --- Even if I read the source file, I can't figure out what it means, as its context is confusing to me. --- It means that the Provides field supports versioned relationships, --- As the meaning of provide(s) in Chinese varies, and there are no answer with machine translation, so could you please try to describe that two words separately? 4 guesses for Provides: 1. 提供 : offers a specific package version 2. 要求 : requires some specific package version 3. 假设 : assumption ...ditto 4. 覆盖 : overwrite ...ditto guesses for versioned: 1. related to version control system, e.g. version tracked by git..etc 2. a version number is given to ... This is a packaging dependencies concept. I'll try to explain. Usually packages can declare dependencies on other packages, so that you can say that the dpkg package «Depends: libc6». Those two are real packages. Sometimes it's desirable to state that a package provides the same/equivalent functionality of another real package. So you could say that package acpica-tools «Provides: iasl». Some other times you want to state that a real package provides some abstract interface, for example X window managers like 9wm or aewm «Provides: x-window-manager». The packages listed in the Provides field are called virtual packages, because they do not need to exist as real packages. But those virtual packages in Provides fields can also be versioned, so they state that they are equivalent to a package with a specific version. So you could have real-package that «Depends: virtual-package (= 1.0)», and another package other-package declaring that it «Provides: virtual-package (= 1.0)». Given the above, I'd assume the closer translation might be the one matching 1? 1. 提供 : offers a specific package version P.S. It would be better that I had this done before jessie's freeze :-( No problem, this will make it for 1.17.x, as the freeze policy was not correct regarding translation and documentation updates. It should have been fixed by now. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770301: dpkg: fails to install second arch of Multi-Arch:same packages with Provides/Conflicts/Replaces:virtualpackage
Hi, On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:00:06 +0100 Andreas Beckmann a...@debian.org wrote: On 2014-11-20 16:51, Guillem Jover wrote: This is expected behavior in dpkg. Conflics/Breaks/Replaces get an implicit any arch qualifier, so those make the dependency unsatisfiable due to the Provides. thanks for making me aware of this. It turns out that dose3 does this wrong as well. So if there's no other issue besides this, I'm just going to be closing this report. Should this rather be reassigned to apt/aptitude to not resolve these packages as co-installable at the first place? Sorry, I already filed this bug with apt without considering to reassign this one. The new bug is #770345 Thanks! cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770301: dpkg: fails to install second arch of Multi-Arch:same packages with Provides/Conflicts/Replaces:virtualpackage
On 2014-11-20 16:51 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:43:15 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Package: dpkg Version: 1.17.21 Severity: important User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: multiarch dpkg fails to configure a second architecture of this package if a first architecture is already installed: Package: libbabl-dev Multi-Arch: same Source: babl Version: 0.1.10-2 Replaces: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Provides: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Breaks: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Both apt and aptitude consider the package to be installable, but dpkg fails to configure it: # dpkg --configure --pending dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libbabl-dev:amd64: libbabl-dev:i386 (0.1.10-2) breaks libbabl-0.0-0-dev and is installed. libbabl-dev:amd64 (0.1.10-2) provides libbabl-0.0-0-dev. dpkg: error processing package libbabl-dev:amd64 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: libbabl-dev:amd64 This is expected behavior in dpkg. Conflics/Breaks/Replaces get an implicit any arch qualifier, so those make the dependency unsatisfiable due to the Provides. Are you sure about that? How come I have libncurses5-dev:amd64 and libncurses5-dev:armhf coinstalled then, when they both Provides/Conflicts/Replaces libncurses-dev? It seems to me that dpkg actually treats Breaks different from Conflicts here. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#766006: Breaks for fontconfig 2.11.0-6.2
Since I've NMUed fontconfig, I think breaks for fontconfig would be useful too. [But you probably already know that, since I managed to typo and close the wrong bug. ;-)] -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com He no longer wished to be dead. At the same time, it cannot be said that he was glad to be alive. But at least he did not resent it. He was alive, and the stubbornness of this fact had little by little begun to fascinate him -- as if he had managed to outlive himself, as if he were somehow living a posthumous life. -- Paul Auster _City of Glass_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770280: po: zh_CN.po, programs translation update
On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 17:09 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: Ok, so I guess your post on the debian-dpkg list does not need a reply anymore? I had pending to go over it before the call for translations. Yes, please don't read that original post anymore, and I have made a conclusion following that thread. please have a look. this patch includes: * [mainly] improve expression * correct a few sentences according to .c file * restore some words to english (e.g. control which directly refers the file namded control when packaging) * accord the translation of some terms Ok, perfect! I'd like to acknowledge that, the improvement of zh_CN.po has not been done yet , but nearly (now about line 0~3000). please look forward to my enhancement patch :) Given the above, I'd assume the closer translation might be the one matching 1? 1. 提供 : offers a specific package version Yes, choice 1 is the best match among those 4. However I have a better translation to it: 填实。 填实 has totally no relationship with provide, but here the 填实 means: ; there are some virtual packages, and the package(real) to be installed ; would fill in the virtual package, i.e. satisfy the need of virtual ; packages. I believe this one is better and more precise than those 4. As for versioned, I comprehended it as a kind of additional attribute. Then the (= 1.0) in «Provides: virtual-package (= 1.0)» has denoted that kind of additional attribute. According to my style of Simplified Chinese language, versioned would be ignored here, i.e. no need to refer. No problem, this will make it for 1.17.x, as the freeze policy was not correct regarding translation and documentation updates. It should have been fixed by now. It is nice to hear that there is still chance to update translations. Thanks. -- Regards, C.D.Luminate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#770301: dpkg: fails to install second arch of Multi-Arch:same packages with Provides/Conflicts/Replaces:virtualpackage
Hi! On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 18:35:51 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: On 2014-11-20 16:51 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:43:15 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Package: dpkg Version: 1.17.21 Severity: important User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: multiarch dpkg fails to configure a second architecture of this package if a first architecture is already installed: Package: libbabl-dev Multi-Arch: same Source: babl Version: 0.1.10-2 Replaces: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Provides: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Breaks: libbabl-0.0-0-dev Both apt and aptitude consider the package to be installable, but dpkg fails to configure it: # dpkg --configure --pending dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libbabl-dev:amd64: libbabl-dev:i386 (0.1.10-2) breaks libbabl-0.0-0-dev and is installed. libbabl-dev:amd64 (0.1.10-2) provides libbabl-0.0-0-dev. dpkg: error processing package libbabl-dev:amd64 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: libbabl-dev:amd64 This is expected behavior in dpkg. Conflics/Breaks/Replaces get an implicit any arch qualifier, so those make the dependency unsatisfiable due to the Provides. Are you sure about that? How come I have libncurses5-dev:amd64 and libncurses5-dev:armhf coinstalled then, when they both Provides/Conflicts/Replaces libncurses-dev? It seems to me that dpkg actually treats Breaks different from Conflicts here. Oh, so it does. :( I've started looking into fixing this, but I'll have to ponder about it to maybe change the behavior the other way around :/, because as it stands, and as pointed out by Johannes off-BTS there are at least 114 M-A:same possibly affected packages, so this is really way off to even consider breaking during the freeze. So this is something for 1.18.x. Apt probably should also hold off fixing anything until dpkg behaves in a consisten way, in either direction. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#766006: Breaks for fontconfig 2.11.0-6.2
On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:37:23 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: Since I've NMUed fontconfig, I think breaks for fontconfig would be useful too. [But you probably already know that, since I managed to typo and close the wrong bug. ;-)] Yeah, the bug was blocking for the three currently known ones: man-db, fontconfig and readahead-fedora. But thanks for the heads-up anyway. :) Regards, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
