Bug 385471 - deb / apt Packages files do not contain all architectures
Summary: deb / apt Packages files do not contain all architectures
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
: 434669 (view as bug list)
Alias: None
Product: openSUSE.org
Classification: openSUSE
Component: BuildService (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other Other
: P3 - Medium : Major with 35 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Schröder
QA Contact: Adrian Schröter
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-04-30 22:39 UTC by Andrew Jorgensen
Modified: 2017-05-11 13:37 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:
Found By: ---
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Andrew Jorgensen 2008-04-30 22:39:00 UTC
As discussed on the opensuse-buildservice mailing list, Packages files generated by OBS do not include packages for all architectures.

http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-buildservice/2008-04/msg00063.html

A description of how to solve the problem was also given on the mailing list:
http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-buildservice/2008-04/msg00324.html

This bug exhibits itself in every project which build multiple architectures for debian-based systems and makes the debian build feature useless in many cases.  The fact that the bug exists for the openSUSE:Tools project makes OBS unusable for debian / ubuntu amd64 users (or i386 users, depending on which built last).
Comment 1 Thomas Anders 2008-08-29 10:09:01 UTC
Wrt. the referenced posting on how to solve the problem: "All" is *not* an architecture on its own. I.e. there can never be a package in "i386" as well as "All" with the same name.

I think the repository layout needs to be changed to have distinct directories for i386 as well as amd64 binary Debian packages and a dedicated Packages.gz file in each of them.
Comment 2 Michael Schröder 2008-08-29 11:16:51 UTC
Yep, my thoughts exactly. I don't believe the debian package format supports multiarch, i.e. a package with the same name that is both in i386 and x86_64.
Comment 3 Martin Mohring 2008-08-29 11:44:09 UTC
A reference to debian would help. Are there official debian packages that use this?
Comment 4 Piotr Pokora 2008-08-29 11:53:11 UTC
If package is marked for all architectures it's stored in pool directory and 'Packages.gz' file for particular arch holds only its path. With current OBS repo layout every package which is marked 'all' should go to every arch directory as there's no automagic architecture distinction. First of all a correct proposal should be made if debian packages' developers here need pooled repository or the one like current.
Comment 5 Michael Schröder 2008-08-29 12:33:54 UTC
I think the main issue is that we need multiple Packages.gz for debian.
Comment 6 Piotr Pokora 2008-08-29 13:17:08 UTC
We need multiple Packages.gz. It's always required for multiple architectures. 
Question what we want or what we can do:

1. packages pools with all architecture packages and particular architecture dir which contain only Packages.gz ( like debian repository )

deb http://repo.com/debian etch main

2. Particular architecture packages + all and Packages.gz in the same dir ( OBS repo ) 

deb http://repo.com/debian/etch/ARCH ./
Comment 7 Michael Schröder 2008-08-29 14:09:02 UTC
I prefer 1) so that the debian folks feel more at home ;-)
Comment 8 Piotr Pokora 2008-08-29 18:23:47 UTC
Yes, absolutely 1. OBS is going to rock once this issue is fixed :)
Comment 9 mrc mrcx0 2008-08-30 22:23:03 UTC
This is somehow a problem to exclude Debian users from the use of packages generated with BuildService....
Comment 10 Piotr Pokora 2008-09-08 12:12:39 UTC
Is there any ETA ?
Comment 11 Michael Schröder 2008-09-08 14:23:12 UTC
I'm afraid not this week, I hope this month...
Comment 12 Andrew Beekhof 2008-09-22 14:38:46 UTC
When implementing this, can we also have the .dsc, .diff.gz, and tar.gz saved somewhere in the directory structure please?  That way people can also recompile for the architectures we don't or won't support.
Comment 13 Forgotten User C-StrwXt80 2008-10-26 02:03:06 UTC
It's already late October, any ETA for this fix? Like others suggested, I also support the #1 proposed solution. Please fix it! :)
Comment 14 Adrian Schröter 2008-10-27 06:35:26 UTC
Do not missuse Crit Sit.
Comment 15 Amilcar do Carmo Lucas 2008-11-17 21:55:23 UTC
Any news on this blocking issue ? ETA ?
Comment 16 Stephan Binner 2008-12-28 08:51:54 UTC
I would also say do not misuse Blocker. :-)
Comment 17 Piotr Pokora 2008-12-28 10:50:02 UTC
@Stephan Binner, how should I treat an issue which makes some feature useless then? Blocker seems to be perfect if you can not use a feature which is designed for usage.
Comment 18 Andrew Jorgensen 2009-02-19 20:46:20 UTC
Any progress on this bug?
Comment 19 Michael Schröder 2009-02-23 11:17:43 UTC
Actually yes, we just need a decision about the repository layout, see my mail to the buildservice mailing list.
Comment 20 Adrian Schröter 2009-04-20 09:27:59 UTC
*** Bug 434669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 21 Michael Schröder 2017-05-11 13:37:39 UTC
I think this was fixed some long time ago.