Bug#1008780: dpkg: protection shouldn't apply to foreign-arch packages

2022-04-03 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 19:00:33 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:26 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > In principle shared libraries should never be marked Essential:yes nor > > Protected:yes, I think this was a special case, that will go away once > > the shared library

Bug#1008780: dpkg: protection shouldn't apply to foreign-arch packages

2022-04-03 Thread Stephen Kitt
Hi Guillem, On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:09:26 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-01 at 14:41:51 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > Package: dpkg > > Version: 1.20.9 > > Severity: normal > > > Protection is applied to foreign-arch packages (e.g. libgcc-s1:i386 on > > amd64) even though they

Bug#1008780: dpkg: protection shouldn't apply to foreign-arch packages

2022-04-02 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Fri, 2022-04-01 at 14:41:51 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.20.9 > Severity: normal > Protection is applied to foreign-arch packages (e.g. libgcc-s1:i386 on > amd64) even though they aren't relevant to the scenarios that > protection is designed to prevent (as I

Bug#1008780: dpkg: protection shouldn't apply to foreign-arch packages

2022-04-01 Thread Stephen Kitt
Package: dpkg Version: 1.20.9 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, Protection is applied to foreign-arch packages (e.g. libgcc-s1:i386 on amd64) even though they aren't relevant to the scenarios that protection is designed to prevent (as I understand it): > Protected packages contain mostly