Re: [multiarch] Proposal for *-dev packages
Goswin von Brederlow (email@example.com) wrote:
>... allowing "Abi: ..." and having
>multiple packages with the same name installed aparently isn't liked
It's not likely for sarge, but if you get it working, I'd doubt that it'd be barred
>> Why can't Provides/Conflicts be used to do this?
>> Your point would get stronger you'd discuss why these couldn't be used
>> to solve the problem.
>Say we have the following:
>Provides: libfoo-dev, libfoo-dev=1.2.3
>Build-Depends: libfoo (>= 1.2.3)
Common practice (see libpkg-guide):
Package: libfooX-dev (arch i386)
Package: libfooX-dev (arch amd64)
>Now the user does:
>apt-get install libfoo-dev
>(some month pass)
>apt-get build-dep bla
>apt-get -b source bla
So now some libfoo-dev package will be installed. I don't see how your binary-all
-dev plus arch dependencies is any better than binary-arch -dev packages.
>And Conflict means that you can't have a user wanting 32bit programms
>and one wanting 64bit programms on the same system.
Hu? Conflicts for -dev files doesn't mean anything for a user wanting any programs.
I can see that there is the problem of i386 -dev packages being installed but I
cannot see how this is different from installing all -dev packages with i386 arch
dependencies where you'd need the 64bit versions.
You stated and claimed to solve the problem "multiple versions of the same -dev
packages should not be (aptempted to be) installed" and suggested a solution. I was
merely pointing out that the common "fooSOVER-dev provides/conflicts foo-dev"
practice solves the very same problem just as well.
I'm not saying that there isn't any problem, but that your suggestion doesn't solve
any that cannot be dealt with otherwise.