[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:20:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Stephan Seitz <nur-ab-sal@gmx.de> writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>We are not saying you shouldn't make binaries coinstallable for
> >>multiple archs, we are only saying we won't make this a policy. It is
> >>left to each package maintainer to decide if he wants to make the
> >>multiarch change for his binary too or not and nearly every one will
> >>not.
> >
> > All right, this is a solution I can live with. Until now I thought,
> > that it would be impossible, even with multiarch, to install two
> > programs together.
> It is impossible to install two packages that contain the same
> filename. Libraries use /usr/lib/arch-os/ to make libs differ between
> archs.

   That's not _entirely_ true. In Tollef's multiarch proposal, files
in /usr/share/doc/<package> can indeed overlap between packages with
precisely the same name differing only in architecture. My preliminary
patches to dpkg supported that behaviour.

> Also programs don't depend on something like galeon (i hope).

   Yes, this is an assumption of Tollef's proposal. Actually, it's
that programs don't depend on galeon *and care what the architecture
of that package is*. (I think... don't hold me to that... :) )


=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
    --- Modern medicine does not treat causes:  headaches are not ---    
                   caused by a paracetamol deficiency.                   

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: