On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:33:34PM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote: > Those are not the same. They are about documenting various aspects of > multi-arch, not about stating whether multi-arch *should* or *must* be > implemented by packages. well, before we can require something must be implemented, we surely also must document what exactly and how. Or? :) > For reference here are the multi-arch policy bugs that I could find: [...] > 687900 - document multiarch IIRC this is blocking the others, so you could take this as the one requiring multi-arch readyness for a package. Also: time has passed indeed and it seems by now Multi-Arch is not controversial anymore. The only thing blocking further widespread usage is probably documentation and a change in policy indeed. So the next step should be to either updating policy bugs with patches for the concrete wordings or updating these bugs saying that old patches still make sense today. > As for contributing I've tried to contribute to packages but so far the > feed back I have gotten is mostly a whole lot of nothing (as is most > often the case with Debian). So that's not very motivating. Maybe this time things will be different. Please keep trying. I'd be very happy to finally see Multi-Arch propoerly documented in debian-policy one day! :-) -- cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature