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

Re: Mass bugfiling in preparation for multiarch

Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:11:35PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> over the weekend I did some work on multiarch again and did notice
>>> some new and old problems when adding more libraries to my test set.
>>> Given that the problems are quite easily detectable I'm considering
>>> scanning all packages for their occurance and reporting bugs for them.
>>> In detail I'm looking for the following situations violating 'Policy
>>> 8.2 Shared library support files':
>> [snip]
>>> Any objections to this? Note that most will be violations of a MUST
>>> directive of policy.
>> If you want to get some more multiarch ennemies, this is clearly the
>> way to go.
>> The alternate method is to post a list to debian-devel, and when we have 
>> a basic multiarch support, you may start thinking about filling bugs.
>> Not before.
> So we should just ignore blatant policy violation until the moment they
> do bite us in the ass? So we wait until the verry last moment when
> everything would be ready to use multiarch and then we freeze squeeze
> before package can be fixed to be multiarch compatible?

No, the first step is to provide a list of affected package, just as
explained in the developer reference. You should also discuss with
ftpmaster, as such changes has been rejected by them, for example libc6
split into libc-bin.

> And by the way. We had basic multiarch support before sarge.  This is
> not "before". This is after it has already killed multiarch for 2
> stable releases. If we don't get things moving in parallel it will
> never be ready for squeeze either.

Yeah, we clearly don't have multiarch support because of libraries
installing files in the wrong place. Not because we don't have
toolchain/dpkg support.

Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply to: