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 >>forever. > 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. Cheers T. -- Thomas Viehmann, <http://beamnet.de/tv/>
Attachment:
pgpiCy9ospFgf.pgp
Description: PGP signature