Re: Debian policy update (220.127.116.11)
Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com> writes:
> ]] Simon McVittie
> | In the meantime, is there consensus that shuffling the development files into
> | /usr/lib/triplet too is at least harmless, and that Multi-Arch: same is
> | appropriate for -dev packages where all the arch-dependent files are in
> | arch-specific directories? I'd rather not break future work if -dev packages
> | aren't really settled yet.
> while it probably doesn't hurt, it's not been specified yet.
> Personally, I'd rather see us get the necessary changes to support
> running multiarch binaries in place before starting to move development
> | > Architecture dependent header files belong under
> | >
> | > /usr/include/triplet/
> | Is there consensus that that's the right place? I don't see any mention on
> | <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec>, which is the nearest I've seen to
> | a canonical description of the current state of multiarch (no pun intended).
> It's the only place that has been discussed, but again, the spec is for
> running multiarchified binaries, not compiling against them. I wouldn't
> upload packages containing includes in triplet directories yet.
Support for /usr/include/triplet/ is in oldstable and stable.
And it is already being used:
% zgrep usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu Contents-amd64.gz