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

Re: Please test gzip -9n - related to dpkg with multiarch support

Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:19:17 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> Well, it does mean that you might be lacking important information
>> because the other changelog wouldn't be present on the system.

> While the implicit Replaces seems the easy way out, it just seems even
> more fragile than the shared files approach.

Yes, this is definitely true.  I was mentioning it as an easy way out, but
it's aesthetically unappealing.

> And while the binNMU changelog issues might seem like a corner case,
> it's just a symptom of something that's not quite right.

Also true.  In fact, it's something that's been bothering me for a long
time with linked doc directories.  I'd like to prohibit them in more cases
so that we get the binNMU changelogs on disk.

> Instead of this, I'd rather see the shared files approach just dropped
> completely, and /usr/share/doc/ files for “Multi-Arch: same” packages be
> installed under /usr/share/doc/pkgname:arch/. This would solve all these
> problems in a clean way for the common case with just the two or three
> mandated files (changelog, changelog.Debian and copyright), if a package
> provides lots more files then they should be split anyway into either a
> libfooN-common libfoo-doc, or similar. And finally this would not be
> really confusing, given that one of the last interface changes was to
> make all dpkg output for all “Multi-Arch: same” packages be always
> arch-qualified.

The only thing I'm worried about here is that we lose something from the
UI perspective.  That's going to be a change historically from where we've
told users to look, and it's a little awkward.  But, thinking it over, the
set of packages that we're talking about is fairly limited.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: