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

Re: Upcoming Debian multiarch support (amd64, sparc64, s390x, mips64) [affects sarge slightly]

On Jan 11, 2004, at 17:54, Scott James Remnant wrote:

Then I don't understand how you're going to deal with this:

binpkg depends on libpkg.

1) Provide both binpkg:i386 and binpkg:amd64, each depending on the
   library with the correct ABI.

That's how I understand it. binpkg:i386 is currently provided in our i386 port, and binpkg:amd64 will be provided by the amd64 port.

Except unless you use bin64, these
   will not be dual-installable


meaning that only one of the libraries
   will ever need to be installed at the same time as well.

Does not follow. I can have binpkg:i386 and binpkg2:amd64 both installed, and they can both depend on libpkg.

A library is rather silly if it's only used by --- and will only ever by used by --- one program (hasn't stopped people, I know).

BTW: How are we going to handle that some dependencies are architecture-dependent, like libraries, while others aren't?

Come to think of it, a perl script's dependencies...

Once you take into account the various inter-library dependencies where
this is an issue, you'll find you pretty well almost need an all-i386
bin or all-amd64 bin anyway.

Not at all. Most packages have no dependencies on each other. If our dependencies were really the tangled web you suggest, I doubt anything would propogate into testing, ever. Even with the RM's help.

Are you planning on submitting your change to the FHS that configuration
files are now required to be architecture independent?  Because that's
certainly exactly the opposite of what the FHS says.

More importantly, sharing configuration files between packages makes for GREAT fun on --purge.

Reply to: