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

Re: multiarch status update




"Daniel Ruoso" <daniel@ruoso.com> wrote in message [🔎] 1147381963.20198.6.camel@localhost.localdomain">news:[🔎] 1147381963.20198.6.camel@localhost.localdomain...
Em Qui, 2006-05-11 às 09:56 +0200, Gabor Gombas escreveu:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Why would that not fly?
> Both versions of the arch-independent package could be installed at
> the same time.
/usr/share/foo/bar can't point to two different files at the same time,
so you can't install multiple package versions containing
incompatible /usr/share/foo/bar files.
The only way to support your proposal would be to kill the concept of
arch-independent packages and make everything arch-dependent.

And what if dpkg knows about it and handle arch-independant packages in
a different way?

In fact, if the system is multiarch, dpkg should have a centralized list
of which packages are installed for each architecture and which packages
are installed for arch: all...

But there's still the problem of arch-independant files inside
arch-dependant files (maybe an arch-dependant package should not include
arch-indenpendant files at all)...

The problem is when foo [i386] depends on bar [all] 1.0,
but foo [amd64] depends on bar [all] 2.0.

There is simply no good way to have bar [all] 1.0 and bar [all] 2.0 installed, so foo [i386] and foo [amd64] cannot both be installed.



Reply to: