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

Re: Debian policy update (

]] Simon McVittie 

| In the meantime, is there consensus that shuffling the development files into
| /usr/lib/triplet too is at least harmless, and that Multi-Arch: same is
| appropriate for -dev packages where all the arch-dependent files are in
| arch-specific directories? I'd rather not break future work if -dev packages
| aren't really settled yet.

while it probably doesn't hurt, it's not been specified yet.
Personally, I'd rather see us get the necessary changes to support
running multiarch binaries in place before starting to move development


| > Architecture dependent header files belong under
| > 
| > /usr/include/triplet/
| Is there consensus that that's the right place? I don't see any mention on
| <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec>, which is the nearest I've seen to
| a canonical description of the current state of multiarch (no pun intended).

It's the only place that has been discussed, but again, the spec is for
running multiarchified binaries, not compiling against them.  I wouldn't
upload packages containing includes in triplet directories yet.

| For packages like libdbus that already split out arch-dep headers to ${libdir}
| there doesn't seem any point in trying to override that, but for packages
| that don't necessarily make sure their headers are arch-indep, would it be
| appropriate to use --includedir=/usr/include/triplet, i.e. pessimistically
| assume that every header is arch-specific?

Given that the only cost is disk space, I think that's a tradeoff that
makes sense.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: