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

[Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>]

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

Correct.

> 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.