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

Re: Edge and multi-arch (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

Hi Martin,

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:18:33PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> [2005-03-14 13:10]:
> > | I have yet to see a proposal how to do multiarch in the right way.
> > What is lacking in the proposals out there?

> The following is what I (as DPL) sent to the release people in January
> to get them to discuss these issues.  I didn't post this to a list
> because what I wrote is kinda rough and I wanted the release people to
> clarify and post it.  Since this hasn't happened yet, I might just as
> well post my original message.  But please note that some important
> things might be missing in it.

> Basically, there has been a lot of discussions about multi-arch and
> some people seem to think that after sarge we'll _obviously_ move to
> multi-arch.  Well, this is not so obvious to me.  In particular, I see
> no consensus among ftpmaster/archive people, release people, toolchain
> people, porters, and basically everyone else that this is the way to
> go.  If we decide to go with multi-arch, we need:

>   - agreement of all these people
>   - a _clear_ plan about this migration (and have this plan before
>     sarge is out), including a clear timeplan (announcement on day X,
>     maintainers have Y months to upload, if they don't do it in Y
>     months, we'll have a time of Z people who'll NMU the packages by
>     G).
>   - a proof of concept (this may exist already)
>   - agreement with some upstream LSB people that it's a good idea for
>     Debian to pioneer this in the hope that others will follow suite
>     (rather than a way of Debian to make itself incompatible with
>     the rest of the world).  [Chris Yeoh and taggart are the people
>     to talk to.]

> There may be a few other things missing, but basically the multi-arch
> people have to show a clear plan _now_ how and why this migration is
> supposed to happen.

Yes, although nothing's made it to the list yet about this (was going to
start a separate thread for that this week, actually), I have had
conversations with Tollef, Matt (Taggart) and the ftp-masters about
multiarch to get a handle on what the issues are.

It seems that we do have a basic proof-of-concept (Tollef's link), but
neither the LSB folks nor the ftp-masters are sold on the idea yet; the
ftp-masters seem to think there have been too many, mutually
incompatible proposals floating around.  Having basic support for
multiarch in glibc/dpkg/toolchain seems sound, but actually using it in
Debian packages for etch seems to hinge on the other concerns above.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: