[Pkg-ia32-libs-maintainers] Bug#537750: Bug#537750: ia32-apt-get: libc6-i386 uninstallable

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Michal Suchanek <hramrach at centrum.cz> writes:

> 2009/7/21 Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b at web.de>:
>> Michal Suchanek <hramrach at centrum.cz> writes:
>>
>>> 2009/7/21 Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b at web.de>:
>>>> Michal Suchanek <hramrach at centrum.cz> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Package: ia32-apt-get
>>>>> Version: 22
>>>>> Severity: important
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried installing wine and it forces installation of libc6-i386 from
>>>>> the i386 repository as opposed the amd64 one which fails.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> E: Couldn't configure pre-depend libc6-i386 for libc6-i386, probably a
>>>>> dependency cycle.
>>>>> A package failed to install. Â Trying to recover:
>>>>> Reading package lists... Done
>>>>> Building dependency tree
>>>>> Reading state information... Done
>>>>> Reading extended state information
>>>>> Initializing package states... Done
>>>>> Writing extended state information... Done
>>>>
>>>> It has resolved itself now as 2.9-21 has been autobuild on amd64. But
>>>> the situation can be avoided in the future.
>>>>
>>>> libc6-i386 (and the other lib32* packages) need to be filtered out for
>>>> amd64. There shouldn't be a libc6-i386 i386 package on amd64, only on
>>>> ia64. My bad.
>>>>
>>>> If you pin 32bit packages lower than 64bit packages then the problem
>>>> goes away too. See the docs for example entries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder though why aptitude picks the uninstallable package in its
>>>> solution. I've seen it pick a lower version and even lower pin for a
>>>> package because that would make it installable. I would have thought
>>>> it would pick libc6-i386 2.9-20 (amd64) instead of 2.9-21~22 (i386)
>>>> here too.
>>>>
>>> I would guess it's because wine depends on 2.9.21 so the 2.9.20 is not
>>> sufficient. Otherwise there would be no reason to upgrade from 2.9.20
>>> after it was pulled in by gcc-multilib.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Michal
>>
>> That would do it.
>>
>> MfG
>> Â  Â  Â  Â Goswin
>>
>
> Which would mean that every time the libc6 in i386 is ahead of libc6
> in amd64 packages compiled against the new libc won't be installable.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal

No, normaly the dependencies aren't so strict. But yes, if you have a
dependency on the latest version and that is not yet compiled for an
arch than things are uninstallable. Unstable is as unstable says.

MfG
        Goswin