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

Re: multiarch: dependency-oriented vs package-oriented

Hi Steve,

Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Eugene,
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> Moreover, this is not the only exception. Thousands of desktop and server
>> packages that contains executable binaries (applications) compiled from
>> C/C++/Pascal/etc. also have arch-dependent reverse dependencies - packages
>> with debug info, '-dbg' ones. So, they are not 'Multi-Arch: foreign' too.
> First, why do these packages need to be cross-installed?

If Debian is going to adopt multiarch, the spec should cover all packages.
Well... here is: one of multiarch stories in Ubuntu multiarch specification
contains an paragraph about the man who installs armel packages on his amd64.
He may easily want to debug those armel packages :)

> Second, why does the Multi-Arch: allowed option not implement what you need?
> It seems ok to me if Multi-Arch: allowed eventually becomes the dominant use
> case.  But there aren't thousands of packages in Debian with "-dbg"
> reverse-dependencies, anyway, so this seems to be a complete non-issue in
> the short term.
My point is: I see not much arguments to implement 'Multi-Arch'
package-oriented field at all, as it won't work for all cases in the short
term, and will be anyway replaced in the long term, plus there is (I think,
but one may object) a possibility to implement multiarch support without it,
which I tried to describe.

Less and simpler changes -> that's my goal.

Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: