XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From: [email protected]

Hi!

On Sun, 2024-09-22 at 10:42:03 +0200, Patrice Duroux wrote:

Source: dpkg
Version:1.22.11
Severity: wishlist

On a biarch system (amd64,i386) and using --force options (note that I am aware of the taken risk ;-)), dpkg shows:

$ dpkg --force-all -i libllvm19_1%3a19.1.0-3_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 722987 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack libllvm19_1%3a19.1.0-3_i386.deb ...
Unpacking libllvm19:i386 (1:19.1.0-3) over (1:19.1.0-3) ...
dpkg: warning: overriding problem because --force enabled:
dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '/usr/lib/llvm-19/lib/libLLVM.so.19.1', which is different from other instances of package libllvm19:i386

I think that the given message is confusing while including the arch,
here (:i386) which is the one of this package itself and not the
possible other instances.
Shouldn't it be better to have: 'which is different from other
instances of package libllvm19'?

I think removing the arch qualifier would make it lose relevant
information, but I think I see what you mean. Would something like the following string make it more clear?

dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '<pathname>' from
multi-arch package <package>,
which is different from currently unpacked instance <package>:<arch>

Even though that repeats the package name, perhaps an alternative
with less repetition could be:

dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '<pathname>' from
multi-arch package <package>,
which is different from currently unpacked <arch> instance

Or thereabouts? (Both being way way longer though.)

Thanks,
Guillem

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From: [email protected]

Source: dpkg
Version:1.22.11
Severity: wishlist

Dear dpkg maintainers,

On a biarch system (amd64,i386) and using --force options (note that I am
aware of the taken risk ;-)), dpkg shows:

$ dpkg --force-all -i libllvm19_1%3a19.1.0-3_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 722987 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack libllvm19_1%3a19.1.0-3_i386.deb ...
Unpacking libllvm19:i386 (1:19.1.0-3) over (1:19.1.0-3) ...
dpkg: warning: overriding problem because --force enabled:
dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '/usr/lib/llvm-19/lib/libLLVM.so.19.1', which is different from other
instances of package libllvm19:i386

I think that the given message is confusing while including the arch,
here (:i386) which is the one of this package itself and not the
possible other instances.
Shouldn't it be better to have: 'which is different from other
instances of package libllvm19'?

Regards,
Patrice

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From: [email protected]

Hi Guilhem,

Also, the installed package providing the current file that is
conflicting might not be related
to that package (multiarch or not). I mean that it could be another
unrelated package.
I wasn't sure if it was a hint message from dpkg that determined the
current proprietary
package of the file (and so it should be another arch) or if it was a
generic message for
all cases.

So maybe if dpkg can't determine at that time which already installed
package is conflicting
for the file to provide better guidance, the message should be very
simple and avoid any
additional sentences. No?

Many thanks,
Patrice

Le mar. 24 sept. 2024 à 03:44, Guillem Jover <[email protected]> a écrit :

Hi!

On Sun, 2024-09-22 at 10:42:03 +0200, Patrice Duroux wrote:

Source: dpkg
Version:1.22.11
Severity: wishlist

On a biarch system (amd64,i386) and using --force options (note that I am aware of the taken risk ;-)), dpkg shows:

$ dpkg --force-all -i libllvm19_1%3a19.1.0-3_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 722987 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack libllvm19_1%3a19.1.0-3_i386.deb ...
Unpacking libllvm19:i386 (1:19.1.0-3) over (1:19.1.0-3) ...
dpkg: warning: overriding problem because --force enabled:
dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '/usr/lib/llvm-19/lib/libLLVM.so.19.1', which is different from other instances of package libllvm19:i386

I think that the given message is confusing while including the arch,
here (:i386) which is the one of this package itself and not the
possible other instances.
Shouldn't it be better to have: 'which is different from other
instances of package libllvm19'?

I think removing the arch qualifier would make it lose relevant
information, but I think I see what you mean. Would something like the following string make it more clear?

dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '<pathname>' from
multi-arch package <package>,
which is different from currently unpacked instance <package>:<arch>

Even though that repeats the package name, perhaps an alternative
with less repetition could be:

dpkg: warning: trying to overwrite shared '<pathname>' from
multi-arch package <package>,
which is different from currently unpacked <arch> instance

Or thereabouts? (Both being way way longer though.)

Thanks,
Guillem

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From: [email protected]

Hi!

On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 09:47:55 +0200, Patrice Duroux wrote:

Also, the installed package providing the current file that is
conflicting might not be related
to that package (multiarch or not). I mean that it could be another
unrelated package.

No, this message is always only concerned about multi-arch instances,
of the same package. There is no support for ref-counting for anything
that is not a Multi-Arch:same package.

I wasn't sure if it was a hint message from dpkg that determined the
current proprietary
package of the file (and so it should be another arch) or if it was a
generic message for
all cases.

The message is only about a conflict that occurs when installing a
multi-arch instance when other instances of the same package are
already unpacked, and the new one does not match the digest for the
other ones.

So maybe if dpkg can't determine at that time which already installed
package is conflicting
for the file to provide better guidance, the message should be very
simple and avoid any
additional sentences. No?

See above, the current instance conflicts with all existing ones (at
the same version). It could also print instead all the existing ones,
but that would make the message longer, and the information for the
current instance is readily available, so I'm not sure what would be
the gain with a reversal of the affected packages?

(I'm now wondering whether I really understand the source of the
confusion for the error message. :)

Thanks,
Guillem

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)