Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have an AMD64 system without any i386 multiarch packages. After successfully upgrading to 12.10, aptitude seems to want to install a few, and I can't tell why:

$ sudo aptitude safe-upgrade 
Resolving dependencies...                
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  gcc-4.7-base:i386{a} libarmadillo3{a} libboost-date-time1.49-dev{a} libboost-serialization1.49-dev{a} 
  libboost-serialization1.49.0{a} libboost-thread1.49-dev{a} libboost1.49-dev{a} libc6:i386{a} libgcc1:i386{a} 
  libgdal1{a} libhdf5-7{a} libltdl7:i386{a} libnetcdfc7{a} libodbc1:i386{a} libreadline6:i386{a} 
  libtinfo5:i386{a} odbcinst1debian2:i386{a} unixodbc:i386{a} 

Why libc6:i386, for example? I ask..

$ aptitude why libc6:i386
p   icoutils:i386 Provides icoutils           
p   icoutils:i386 Depends  libc6:i386 (>= 2.8)

... alright, but why icoutils:i386?

$ aptitude why icoutils:i386
p   icoutils:i386 Provides icoutils

But I already have the AMD64 version of icoutils:

$ aptitude search icoutils
i   icoutils                                           - Create and extract MS Windows icons and cursors             
p   icoutils:i386                                      - Create and extract MS Windows icons and cursors 

Has some multiarch behavior changed recently, or am I just overlooking something?

Addendum: Chasing down from gcc-4.7-base:i386, I'm led to qdbus:i386, which is up for installation since it provides qdbus... which I already have.

share|improve this question
aptitude isn't very good at multiarch yet. I'd override it's choices, if it wants to install things that you don't want – tumbleweed Nov 6 '12 at 12:44
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Doing dpkg --remove-architecture i386 seems to have solved my problem. I did not have any i386 packages anyway. For those who do, that solution probably won't cut it.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.