[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools

Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 07:35 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

>> I would have no objections to the ftp team allowing ia32-apt-get back
>> into the archive, but I'm going to vote against overriding them; and
>> barring a motion from another TC member to override the ftp team, I
>> don't intend to spend more energy on this thread.  If you want to see
>> this package back in the archive, I recommend that you persuade the ftp
>> team that /their/ concerns with the package are addressed.

> I agree that this is the most reasonable approach to resolution.  I,
> too, am unwilling to override the existing ftp-master decision in this
> matter based on the discussion so far in this thread.

Here's a summary of where I'm at on this issue.

* Multiarch is the correct solution to the problem, and the sooner that we
  get to multiarch, the better.  Everyone generally agrees on this.  The
  debate is essentially over what short-term cludge we want to use to
  support 32-bit binaries on amd64 platforms until we get multiarch.

* Both ia32-libs and ia32-libs-tools are ugly solutions, but in different

* The ia32-apt-get architecture, involving meddling with package metadata
  and rebuilding packages into its own namespace that aren't in the Debian
  archive, breaks some invariants about Debian package metadata and
  violates intended abstraction layers in ways that I find disturbing.
  It's a solution that sets off warning bells for me.  I think the
  problems and pitfalls of ia32-libs are better-understood and less

* ia32-libs is not a new bandaid.  It's the one that we've been living
  with for some time.  Its problems, which are significant, are at least
  problems that we've already dealt with and have for some time, and the
  relevant people in Debian know how to work around them or deal with them
  as needed.  This is not true of ia32-libs-tools.

* The dpkg-cross comparison isn't entirely relevant.  dpkg-cross is a tool
  for experts in a narrow scope around an unusual use of Debian.
  ia32-libs-tools is much more likely to be used by naive users who are
  trying to get third-party commercial software such as Flash players to
  work.  The dpkg-cross users can be presumed to have a better idea what
  they're doing, and to be aware that they're doing something strange that
  they may have to take apart and put back together again as the rest of
  Debian moves forward.  ia32-libs-tools is more likely to reach an
  unsophisticated mass user base.

The best solution is clearly to finish multiarch and remove the need to do
anything in this area.  In the meantime, I think it's reasonable for
ftpmaster to pick the poison that they want to live with between the two
ugly solutions that have been put forward.  If they think that ia32-libs
is less broken in the short term than ia32-libs-tools, I don't want to
argue with them, and I don't see a lot of compelling need to have both of

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: