Re: Fixing dependency resolution of britney
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:46:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:55:19PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Why would we want to not always permit binary packages to depend on
> > packages of foreign architectures if these architectures are also release
> > architectures and the binary packages are installable together with
> > packages from the native architecture?
>
> Because allowing arbitrary packages to have cross-dependencies has the
> potential to negatively impact the installability of packages on a system
> that has not been configured for multiarch. We want to allow
> cross-dependencies for certain use cases not well served by the current
> infrastructure (e.g., cross-compilers). We don't want packages to
> inadvertently introduce cross-dependencies that break the
> same-arch-bootstrappability of the archive, or that cause all our users to
> have to download 2x as many Packages files to make full use of their
> systems.
In that case, perhaps what you want is a hand-managed list of packages that
are allowed to have cross-arch dependencies. If you also skip real checks,
this would be trivial to implement.
This way, britney's logic would remain purely single-arch.
--
A tit a day keeps the vet away.
Reply to: