Re: multiarch: dependency-oriented vs package-oriented
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> 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 they don't need
> to be, then there's no reason to set the Multi-Arch field on them at all.
I want zsh for be "Multi-Arch: foreign" so zomg:i386 and
flowscan:amd64 can be installed. But then zsh:amd64 and zsh-dbg:i386
would be installable, which clearly does not give functional debugging
symbols.
-dbg packages are a valid concern I think. But not a show stopper. One
that can be solved with a bit of magic. .ddeb packages would be a
solution benefiting users, multiarch and the archive and mirrors in
the long run. Till then -dbg packages can be detected by name in the
worst case.
> 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.
% apt-cache search -- -dbg | wc -l
920
Approaching *1* thousands of packages. :)
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: