Re: Questions about the amd64-multiarch-3 proposal
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:37:08AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I have some comment on the amd64-multiarch-3 proposal
> <http://people.debian.org/~ajt/amd64-multiarch-3.txt>
> First I think this update go in the right direction, at least it does
> not look like a large kludge, but I need some clarification.
Well, it doesn't actually work, since it doesn't provide a feasible way
to upgrade from sarge to that scheme.
> I will assume, while it is not stated explicitly that amd64-multiarch-3
> follow amd64-multiarch-2 w.r.t. the introduction
> /usr/$(gcc -dumpmachine)/{lib,include}
> Without this assumption the proposal make no sense.
Yup. I'm only interested in the package management details, which are
mostly independent from the actual file structure.
> > lib<foo><n>-<arch>
> > - .so file
> > - libfooN-x, libfooM-x, libfooN-y must all be concurrently
> > installable
> If you ship the .so symlink here, how will you have libfooN-x and libfooM-x
> concurently installable ?
That's the .so.1.2.3.4 file (ie, the library itself), not the development
symlink.
> > lib<foo><n>-dev-<arch>
(This should probably be lib<foo>-dev-<arch> in most cases)
> 2) Should -dev-common depend on -dev-arch (even after the transitional
> period?)
Probably. That'd make it:
foo-dev-common
Depends: foo-dev
foo-dev-amd64
Provides: foo-dev
Depends: foo-dev-common
or so.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law
http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Reply to: