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

Re: [multiarch] Proposal for *-dev packages

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Thomas Viehmann" <tv@beamnet.de> writes:
>>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
> Never was ment for sarge. No way.
Oh. Sorry. I've just seen some todo list where one item was "this little
thing for sage...".

> The -dev package would install _both_ architectures arch dependend
> packages for multiarch and just one for non-multiarch. That way
> multiarch has some bloat (just on the users harddisk) but will allways
> have the right version.
> And people can still do non multiarch amd64.
Ah. Now I'm getting closer to see how this should work. I just don't
know how you'd get packages to require both arch dependend stuff without
a lot of exceptions.

>>>And Conflict means that you can't have a user wanting 32bit programms
>>>and one wanting 64bit programms on the same system.
> Wanting to compile, sorry.
Ah. I'm not quite sure why this should be a feature common enough for
not being solved by 32 bit chroots, but if you say that this is
required, I'm almost convinced.

> The "fooSOVER-dev provides/conflicts foo-dev" doesn't help getting the
> right -dev package for the target arch the user chooses to be
> available or even prevent i386 -dev packages from falsely providing
> stuff for amd64 compiles (if on 64bit developement is supported for amd64).
Ah. Sorry. I falsely understood that the -dev packages should always be
64 bit...

I'd still think that a better approach would eventually be accepted, but
thanks for taking the time to explain the issue.


Thomas Viehmann, <http://beamnet.de/tv/>

Attachment: pgp_4j6YSL4Qu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: