+++ Helmut Grohne [2016-02-08 20:10 +0100]: > Hi Wookey, > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:26:35PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > > And it is conceptually the simplest for package-maintainers to use. > > (Depend on flex, depend on libfl-dev if you use c++, arches will 'just > > work' with no mysterious :native for unobvious reasons) > > Even though it seems we are set on dropping the flex -> libfl-dev > dependency, I think you have a strange measure of simplicity here. What > is easier to get right? "Just depend on flex." or "Depend on flex and if > you use C++, also depend on libfl-dev." The :native only comes into play > if you use flex to generate build tools regardless of how we make flex > Multi-Arch again. Sorry - you are right there. I misunderstood. > So I still think that my patch is simpler for package maintainers using > flex, precisely because they do not have to think. In fact, nothing > changes for them. It just magically starts working for cross compiling > as well. True. It's up to Manoj really. I think this thread has clearly covered the issues. (apart from someone needing to work out how many thing _actually_ need libfl-dev). Yours does produce 3 binary packages instead of 2. But that's quite a small overhead in exchange for no more work than 'upload new flex' Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature