Bug#930466: libfaudio-dev not multi-arch installable as it ships binary /usr/bin/faudio_tests.
Package: libfaudio-dev
Version: 19.06.07-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
When trying to do a multiarch-install of libfaudio-dev for amd64 and i386 on my
machine, I get the following error:
Unpacking libfaudio-dev:i386 (19.06.07-1) ...
dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/libfaudio-
dev_19.06.07-1_i386.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite shared '/usr/bin/faudio_tests', which is different from
other instances of package libfaudio-dev:i386
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libfaudio-dev_19.06.07-1_i386.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
As Faudio is mainly needed to build and cross-compile wine on amd64, this
renders the package mostly useless.
faudio_tests are the unit tests for the Faudio package, which should most
likely not be shipped, especially not as part of the -dev package.
When I build faudio from the upstream source, the tests are not even build at
all.
The fix is to not ship the binary, I included a trivial patch for this.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (999, 'unstable'), (998, 'testing'), (990, 'stable'), (500,
'unstable-debug'), (350, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 5.1.7-own (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages libfaudio-dev depends on:
ii libfaudio0 19.06.07-1
libfaudio-dev recommends no packages.
libfaudio-dev suggests no packages.
diff -Naur faudio-19.06.07.orig/debian/libfaudio-dev.install faudio-19.06.07/debian/libfaudio-dev.install
--- faudio-19.06.07.orig/debian/libfaudio-dev.install 2019-06-13 08:45:02.172434065 +0200
+++ faudio-19.06.07/debian/libfaudio-dev.install 2019-06-13 08:46:36.585944833 +0200
@@ -2,4 +2,3 @@
usr/lib/*/*.so
-usr/bin/faudio_tests
Reply to: