Re: [multiarch] Proposal for *-dev packages
Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
>... allowing "Abi: ..." and having
>multiple packages with the same name installed aparently isn't liked
>at all.
It's not likely for sarge, but if you get it working, I'd doubt that it'd be barred
forever.
>> 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:
>Package: libfoo-dev
>Version: 1.2.3
>
>Package: lib64foo-dev
>Version: 1.2.3
>Provides: libfoo-dev, libfoo-dev=1.2.3
>
>Source: bla
>Build-Depends: libfoo (>= 1.2.3)
Common practice (see libpkg-guide):
Package: libfooX-dev (arch i386)
Provides: libfoo-dev
Conflicts: libfoo-dev
Package: libfooX-dev (arch amd64)
Provides: libfoo-dev
Conflicts: libfoo-dev
>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.
Cheers
T.
Cheers
T.
Reply to: