Merge lp:~vorlon/ubuntu/natty/eglibc/multiarch-support into lp:ubuntu/natty/eglibc
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Merged at revision: | 134 |
Proposed branch: | lp:~vorlon/ubuntu/natty/eglibc/multiarch-support |
Merge into: | lp:ubuntu/natty/eglibc |
Diff against target: |
129 lines (+44/-6) 5 files modified
debian/changelog (+10/-0) debian/control (+18/-4) debian/control.in/libc (+1/-1) debian/control.in/main (+14/-0) debian/rules (+1/-1) |
To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~vorlon/ubuntu/natty/eglibc/multiarch-support |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Colin Watson | Approve | ||
Martin Pitt | Approve | ||
Ubuntu Release Team | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+54135@code.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
Currently, trying to install any foreign arch libraries with apt will fail with this error:
E: Couldn't configure pre-depend multiarch-support for libgcc1, probably a dependency cycle.
This is correct behavior on the part of apt. libc6 Provides: multiarch-support, libgcc1 Pre-Depends: multiarch-support, libc6 Depends: libgcc1.
The proposed branch will break this dependency loop for foreign arch packages by making 'multiarch-support' a real, Multi-Arch: foreign package depending on the native libc to satisfy these dependencies. I believe this should have no effect on the native system, which avoids this dependency loop by having the necessary libraries installed before apt is ever called; and I believe it's safe for foreign architectures because a) there's no way you're getting a foreign libc unpacked, *period*, unless it's already Multi-Arch: same, and there should be no libc package that's Multi-Arch: same that doesn't also support the multiarch paths; and b) it's the foreign arch, so if I'm wrong about this there's no danger to the package manager's integrity (you can't cross-grade the base system yet).
But it's late in the cycle and this is a new (if contentless) binary package being added to the base system, so I'm requesting the release team's review before landing this change.
Hmm, just noticed that requesting review from 'ubuntu-release' didn't seem to actually generate any useful mails. Requesting review from Colin and/or Martin explicitly.