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

Re: Bug#792281: texlive-latex-base: not Multi-Arch: foreign

Hi Helmut,

thanks for your detailed answer, that is very helpful. I slowly
might get a feeling about what is necessary.

You broadly overestimate my understanding here:

> You are already understanding M-A stuff quite well as can be seen from
> the quality of your questions.

since I not even understand the distinction between all the M-A: fields,
but I think I know where I have to zoom in:

> So let me prioritize issues a bit so we don't get lost.
>  * Marking packages such as tex-common, texlive-base and

I think the prime problem is with tex-common, although you didn't
spot it. tex-common declares an interest on some files called
format files. TeX (and friends like metafont) create dump files,
memory images, which are generated via the trigger mechanism of
dpkg by tex-common's postinstall, see do_triggers which calls
basically fmtutil-sys.

So besides the format dump files, I don't see anything where the
arch might possibly leak in the way that it disturbs M-A. And
then again, the real problem is not mixing i386 and am64, but
big-endian and little-endian systems.

I have to inquire about teh current status of the format dump 
compatibility between different systems.

In the case that the format files are compatible across all systems,
I would feel now more comfortable adding any M-A: tag you advise
(see above, I am honestly completely ignorant about the different
semantics of M-A flags).

>    texlive-latex-base M-A:foreign has a very immediate benefit on cross
>    building and being able to mix architectures in a multiarch enabled
>    system.

I am not sure here - the format dumps are generated by tex-common
via trigger, but the files that are used to generated the formats
are shipped by different packages. 

In the case that the dump files are *not* compatbile, would it 
still make sense to decalre all the non-tex-common packages 
M-A: foreign, and only the tex-common package something else?
I guess that does not make sense, right?

>  * Moving libraries in src:texlive-bin to multiarch locations probably
>    is the right thing to do, but I haven't seen any negative
>    consequences of not doing so yet.

I agree here, that is something that can be done completely 
independent from the rest. I will look into switching to dh 9 and
see if there are any problems.

>  * Marking those libraries M-A:same probably is the right thing to do,
>    but since there are no non-texlive reverse dependencies (am I missing
>    some?), I don't see any practical problems solved.

Indeed, besides texlive-binaries, though.

Thanks a lot for your continous support and patience with my
ignorant questions


PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Reply to: