Re: multiarch: dependency-oriented vs package-oriented
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:20:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> You raise an interesting point there with -dbg packages. Esspecially
> considering the Google SoC project that wants to automatically build
> -dbg packages for everything in debian. Those .ddeb packages. Too me
> it seems that .ddeb packages seem like a really good idea and teaching
> the package management system that .ddeb packages must match the
> architecture no matter what the .deb says seems like the solution to
> your example. The -dbg packages could be handled all in one go
> magically. So do you have another example besides -dbg packages?
In the specific case of external .ddeb packages, there are additional
options available to us. In particular, since .ddeb archives don't exist
today for Debian, and would presumably not be subject to the same sort of
archive consistency checks, then if dpkg adds support for
architecture-constrained dependencies (Depends: fwibble:i386) in the squeeze
time frame, these could be used for ddebs immediately in squeeze even though
they're not supported in the main archive.
> I myself am not yet happy with the "Multi-Arch: allowed" feature as
> solution. And I haven't heard all the rational behind it. Why it is
> better than other suggestions from the past. It is something that has
> been added to the specs recently and I think you make a point that
> maybe it needs to be thought of or explained some more. The existing
> -dbg packages certainly make a point for allowing "Depends: foo:same"
> or "Depends: foo:arch" no matter what foo has as "Multi-Arch: ...".
Which past suggestions are you referring to? Ephemeral ideas that no one
saw fit to record aren't of much help.
I think the rationale is already laid out in the spec.
I also think that -dbg packages are a wart on our archive and our packaging,
and am not overly concerned about whether these packages remain consistent
on transition to multiarch - unlike interpreters, which need to be handled
right for the sanity of our users.
> Another option would be for foo to
> Provides: foo-$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-${binary:version}
> and for foo-dbg to depend on that. Or for plugins
> Provides: foo-$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-$(PLUGIN_ABI).
I don't think that's acceptable.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: