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

Re: Debian policy update (

On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:17:19PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 at 20:46:18 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Goswin wrote:
> > >> Looks fine from here. How does your -dev package look? The .so link, .la
> > >> and .pc files (if any) are specifically important.

> > > The -dev package has no Multi-Arch field, which seems to be how the multiarch
> > > spec on the Ubuntu wiki intends things to be done? As such, I'm still using
> > > /usr/lib for the -dev part.

> > Initialy yes. But esspecially for cross compiles multiarch dev packages
> > would be nice. But that will need more developement.

> 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.

The policy exception is currently not written to permit this.  Please don't
upload packages to the archive that violate policy.

(-dev is not handled because there hasn't been enough time yet for a
fleshed-out proposal with enough eyeballs on it to make sure something
hasn't been misdesigned.  It /seems/ obvious that -dev packages should be
able to follow the same rules as runtime lib packages, but .pc and .la
files, for example, add new wrinkles, and we shouldn't be pushing to the
archive before we're confident we have it right.)

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: