Re: Bug#535645: Bug #535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:43:37PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 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.
ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are broadly considered to be kludges. These are
largely tolerable because their scope is self-limiting: the more libraries
that are added the harder it becomes to maintain the packages, so there's
pressure to only include those libraries for which there's the most critical
user demand.
ia32-libs-tools, OTOH, takes this kludged architecture and enshrines it in
an easy-to-use form that guarantees that biarch will expand without bounds,
effectively polluting the multiarch transition for *all* library packages.
> - 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.
Oh great, so experimental wine is now also using paths intended for
multiarch in biarch packages.
This is an FHS violation, and should be treated as a serious bug.
> Once Stage1 of multiarch (as per the Ubuntu proposal) is completed,
> and that is a release goal for squeeze, ia32-libs-tools will only
> have to handle packages that didn't multiarchify in time for squeeze
> (and there will certainly be some left) and -dev and -dbg packages that
> need Stage2 of multiarch (which requires a stable release cycle).
-dev packages don't require a stable release cycle before conversion to
multiarch.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: