Bug#535645: Bug #535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools
* Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-v-b@web.de) [090809 17:43]:
> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
> > * Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-v-b@web.de) [090809 06:44]:
> >> My plan is that it will be reduced to nothing as stages of multiarch
> >> get implemented and finaly be removed. But multiarch will need time to
> >> get there and ia32-apt-get probably will add extra value to it until
> >> multiarch can enter round 2 after having been around for a full stable
> >> release cycle.
> >
> > Can you please say how you pkan the different stages of multiarch, and
> > when are they due? Is this plan coordinated with someone (release
> > team, ftp team, dpkg maintainer, ...)?
>
> I don't think that is really relevant to the question of wether
> ia32-libs-tools should be in the archive or not. Right now there is no
> multiarch and right now ia32-libs-tools is a valuable tool for many
> users. Even if there would be absolutely no plan to support multiarch
> it would be just like ia32-libs, ia32-libs-gtk, dpkg-cross or apt-cross.
Well, e.g. if we would learn from the discussion that ia32-libs-tools
will be in the archive only till end of August anyways, I think our
decision is quite obvious.
[ resorted ]
> > Also, is "multiarch" (Goswin) the same as "multiarch" (dpkg)?
>
> Make that "multiarch" (Tollef) and "multiarch" (Ubuntu). The
> difference between the old and the new proposal is superficial. The
> part that affects ia32-libs-tools is that "Multi-Arch: yes|no|unset"
> became "Multi-Arch: same|foreign|unset". From a coding point of view
> it really makes no difference which of the two will be used and
> whatever dpkg/apt will use I will use.
So basically everything (except some values in apt) is the same? Did
Tollef agree to the steps below?
> - Adding support to libapt to download binary-<arch>/Packages for
> multiple architectures and extending the sources.list format to
> include [arch=i386] syntax.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=536029
>
> If this is added then the ia32-apt-get, ia32-aptitude, ia32-synaptic
> wrappers can stop running multiple instances of apt-get to update
> the packages lists and use just Apt::Update::Post-Invoke. People
> can keep the wrappers or create an /etc/apt.conf.d/ia32-apt-get
> and use the plain versions.
Is there any feedback from the apt maintainers on that? I cannot see
anything in the bug report.
> - Adding support in libapt / dpkg to support package:arch and allowing
> libfoo:i386 and libfoo:amd64 to be coinstalled. Doesn't need
> handling of /usr/share/* nor handling the Multi-Arch field nor all
> the implicit package relationship magic multiarch involves.
No bug report yet I assume? Is this already discussed with the
appropriate maintainers?
> - Moving libraries from /usr/lib/ to /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) in
> individual packages.
>
> If this is done (like experimental wine has just done) then
> ia32-libs-tools can stop moving files from /usr/lib to
> /usr/lib32.
This sounds non-breaking to me. Has this been discussed somewhere
already? If so, how about doing "the usual" developer motivations,
like a (dynamic) page which libraries need to be changed, plus lintian
check? Do the glibc maintainers agree to change?
Cheers,
Andi
Reply to: