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

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



On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:07:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Concretely, as I have argued previously, there is a difference of scale
> > between ia32-apt-get and other related tools.  dpkg-cross is ugly, but it is
> > low level and therefore has built-in barriers to adoption; it's not a tool
> > that casual users are going to use to cross-install arbitrary libraries,
> > it's a tool that embedded developers can use as a basis for their own
> > private infrastructure to set up and maintain cross-build environments.

> > It also, last I looked at it, was entirely free of the potential multiarch
> > file conflicts discussed in this bug.  (I acknowledge that you have agreed
> > to address these issues for ia32-apt-get, but at the time the package was
> > removed it's my understanding that they had not been addressed.)

> True. But I have never been asked to address them. Implementing
> compatibility with multiarch requires multiarch to be implemented at
> least party. You can not expect ia32-libs-tools to be compatible with
> multiarch before it even was specified what it is.

In http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00638.html ff., I asked
that biarch packages (which encompasses ia32-apt-get) not install anything
into the multiarch library paths, to keep these paths clear for the
multiarch implementation.  You asserted that there was no need to do this
because multiarch packages would already need to conflict with corresponding
biarch packages, a premise which I have never accepted.

While not a statement that ia32-apt-get *would* use these paths, it seemed
clear that you didn't consider it a problem if they (and related packages)
*did* use these paths.

The path structure of multiarch is one part that has been specified for
years.  You can hardly claim to have been unaware of this.

> Ftp-master does not tell why they removed it. They only say they won't
> let it back.

> And now I am supposed to magically address the concerns nobody is
> willing to state?

I was assuming that the process would involve discussion between you and the
ftp team about the specific problems perceived with the package, possibly
using your sponsor as a proxy.  I don't know that you would find magic to be
a particularly successful strategy.

-- 
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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: