Re: Bug#535645: Bug #535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 11:18:27PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 05:43:37PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> - 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.
> No, it is using multiarch paths in native packages. The way packages
> are supposed to do for multiarch. Maybe it is a bit ahead of the curve
> but it is exactly doing what multiarch expects it to do.
$ zgrep usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu dists/unstable/Contents-amd64.gz |grep -c wine
921
$
These are biarch packages, using the i486 path on amd64.
This is not multiarch at all.
> If you think that is wrong then that is a bug in wine. Nothing to do
> with ia32-libs-tools.
If a package that ships files in the multiarch paths is installed using
ia32-libs-tools, where will the resulting biarch package's files be located?
Will they not be in the multiarch paths?
> > -dev packages don't require a stable release cycle before conversion to
> > multiarch.
> They do if they need an architecture specific depenency, think perl,
> python, ocaml, apache.
That has nothing to do with being -dev packages.
> They need a multiarch capable extended toolchain, meaning libtool,
> pkg-config,
You have not demonstrated that this is dependent on the passing of a stable
release cycle. If you had any sense at all, you would be working out a
design for what *does* need to happen here instead of wasting everyone's
time with ia32-libs-tools.
> automake, autoconf.
Unlikely that anything needs to change here, but not relevant to -dev
packages anyway.
> They need to work with the existing biarch -dev packages or have to
> replace them.
Which, again, does not block on having an intervening release cycle.
> Last I heart multiarchifying -dev packages was not planed for Stage 1
> of the multiarch proposal. Has that changed?
No. Who said that stage 2 has to wait until after squeeze is out?
--
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: