Re: Multi-arch and dependencies on arch: all packages
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 05:00:13PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Steve reported me this problem concerning the current implementation of
>> the multiarch spec (he uses my latest pu/multiarch/snapshot/* branch).
>
>> Le mercredi 09 févr. 2011, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>> > - I've just marked tzdata (an Architecture: all package) as Multi-Arch:
>> > foreign in the Ubuntu archive because I noticed my test libc6 package
>> > (libc6 depends on tzdata in Ubuntu but not in Debian) failed to install,
>> > listing this dependency as one of the reasons. At first I was going to
>> > report this as a bug, but then I remembered this:
>> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec#Dependencies%20involving%20Architecture:%20all%20packages
>> >
>> > Now dpkg fails to install this package at all, with this error:
>> >
>> > parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci/control' near line 18 package 'tzdata':
>> > package has multiarch field but is architecture all
>> >
>> > And doing so complies with this requirement from the spec:
>> >
>> > "Setting the Multi-Arch field on a package which is Architecture: all is
>> > considered an error. dpkg-deb must refuse to generate a .deb with this
>> > combination of values. Behavior when trying to install such a package is
>> > undefined."
>> >
>> > (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec#Binary%20package%20control%20fields)
>> >
>> > These two requirements are clearly in conflict. I've updated the wiki
>> > page to make it clear that only Multi-Arch: same is disallowed for
>> > Architecture: all packages. Please update the dpkg implementation to
>> > match when you have a chance.
>
>> I think it's wrong to (have to) add the Multi-Arch field to architecture
>> all packages. I would rather suggest that we consider them as
>> automatically satisfying any dependency (i.e. the Multi-Arch: foreign
>> would be implicit).
>
>> What do other people think?
>
>> An architecture all package that provides something arch specific is
>> very rare and it's often meant to be used in situation where you precisely
>> want to make this available to other architectures (i.e. syslinux-common).
>
>> So I don't think that we have to go through all the trouble to whitelist
>> them one by one.
>
> Sorry, I should have included in my mail the rationale for this requirement
> - which I remembered from the drafting sessions but didn't add when updating
> the wiki page.
>
> The reason we determined while drafting that Architecture: all packages
> should not automatically satisfy dependencies as if they were Multi-Arch:
> foreign is that in the current scheme, an Architecture: all package can very
> well be used as a metapackage to bridge a dependency between two
> Architecture: any packages that need to be of the same architecture.
>
> As a practical example: the python package is Architecture: all. Every
> python C extension package is Architecture: any and depends on python as an
> /interface/ to the python2.x Architecture: any packages which *must* be of
> the same architecture.
>
> I believe the consensus when drafting was that, if we didn't treat
> Architecture: all packages as being equivalent to the native arch for
> dependency solving, there would be cases when we would have insufficient
> information to properly verify dependencies due to the masking effect.
>
> With that rationale, does this requirement make more sense to you? Or do
> you see some other way to make this work? (Bearing in mind that both dpkg
> and higher-level package managers like apt need to be able to sort through
> the deps correctly)
It actually makes less sense.
You have identified the 2 cases of arch:all apckages:
1) truely architecture independent and satisfies dependencies for any
arch
2) meta packages that are placeholder for an arch:any package
So why then forbid the use of the Multi-Arch field to let maintainers
choose between the 2 types?
The other solution is to let arch:all packages fullfill depends for any
arch but consider them as if they were arch:any when computing the
closure of dependencies. That means things the arch:all package depends
on must be the same arch as the package depending on the arch:all
package or Multi-Arch: foreign.
Dependency chains could then look like this:
foo:i386 -> bla-plugins-meta:all -> bla-plugin:i386
foo:amd64 -> bla-plugins-meta:all -> bla-plugin:amd64
This is how I read the specs:
"Pre-multiarch, architecture-dependent packages may depend on
Architecture: all packages and assume that the transitive dependencies
will be resolved using packages of the same architecture or other
packages that are Architecture: all."
Under multiarch the "same architecture" would mean the same architecture
as the package depending on the arch:all package.
Now you seem to say that the second chain would be illegal. Which
matches the next sentence in the specs:
"To avoid breaking this assumption, Architecture: all packages will, at
least initially, be treated as equivalent to packages of the native
architecture for all dependency resolution."
But that seems unneccessary. You only need to use the same, not the
native architecture.
Note that both methods can be combined for the best effect. Default
would be to use the same architecture for transitive dependencies unless
Multi-Arch: foreign is specified.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: