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

Re: multiarch: dependency-oriented vs package-oriented

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> writes:
>> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> 2) Tagging package relationships instead of packages means extending
>>>>> the syntax of package relationsships, trusting the binary packages to
>>>>> get the depends right
>>>> You'll have to do it sooner or later. At least for already mentioned perl,
>>>> python and others. Or no?
>>> Yes, but how many are there. Perl for example has 2627 reverse
>>> depends. How many of those are plugins?
>> Don't matter. If even there is literally one package, the new syntax has to be
>> defined. Once you add it, it doesn't matter - one package uses it or thousand
>> of ones.
> Sure. But do you want to alter 10 plugin packages or 2627 packages?
> Considering how hard it is to transition has gone into the
> considerations too.
The best I would imagine is to alter 'Arch: any' to 'Arch: multi' (as
Charles suggested) or insert 'Multi-Arch: yes' automatically by the some
tool (dak?), as checking co-installableness can be done automatically by
simply diffing 'dpkg -c package.deb' for produced arches (one and tricky
way), or add them manually to the ~200 libraries you want to transition
in the first round - not very hard. For thousand of Perl libraries
inserting 'Depends: perl:foreign' could be inserted by ${perl:Depends}
substitute requiring binNMUs only. I am not sure for python modules or
modules for other interpreters though.

I would still want that multi-arch dependencies would be specified at
one straight place, not two.

Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: