On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 01:55:57PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Steve Langasek wrote: > > A virtual package is a good idea, though - in fact, it's such a good idea > > that I remember now we discussed this back at DebConf and I'd subsequently > > forgotten about it. Thanks for jogging my memory! :) Yes, whether or not > > we add support in a stable point release, I think that if we don't go the > > dpkg-shlibdeps route we should use a 'multiarch' or 'multiarch-foo' virtual > > package. > But you would put those Pre-Depends: multiarch-foo on the (core) libraries > that should not disappear, right? Yep, exactly. > It seems cleaner to put it there rather than on utilities. > I would also favor any solution that doesn't involve any shlibs bump in > libc. We've gone to great length to have symbols support in many > libraries, it would be a pity to lose the benefits due to multi-arch (even > if multi-arch is great too!). Right, I think there's a consensus to go this direction then, and only add dependencies on a multiarch metapackage for those libraries that install to the new paths. Thanks, -- 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