Hi Helmut, On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 at 07:46:26 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > That was quick. Let me answer some of your comments already. I intend > to take another stab at the upload when I find more time, but that > shall not prevent other interested sponsors from uploading it earlier. > Possibly Gerrit replied by then. I still have a hope to make it to Debconf (I'm currently on the waiting list :-/). Would be great to make it happen there! FYI upstream made a new release today. That includes a fix to the two issues you reported in #27; my own patches included in patches/series have been applied as well. http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/dropbear/2015q3/001777.html However, this time I didn't pull in the changes (although Debian is now 3 releases behind…) > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 05:44:09AM +0200, Guilhem Moulin wrote: >> Alright, this one is new to me. I'm not sure how blindly I can follow >> >> https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation#dh.281.29_and_autotools >> >> because dropbear-bin ships an executable ‘/usr/lib/dropbear/dropbearconvert’. >> So checked the package source for openssh and found that openssh-server >> uses Multi-Arch:foreign, but openssh-sftp-server, which ships >> ‘/usr/lib/openssh/sftp-server’, doesn't. So all in all I'm unsure what >> to in my case. > > It is actually much easier than that. Since dropbear does not ship any > libraries or similar, the only Multi-Arch tag that makes sense is > "foreign". So this is mostly a matter of asking: Does a package expose > its architecture via one of its public interfaces? If the answer is > "no", then "foreign" is appropriate. > […] > I didn't spot any reason for not marking all of the dropbear packages > M-A:foreign, but this probably warrants a closer look. Thanks for the explanation. Yes, ‘Multi-Arch: foreign’ is the right tag in that case. I have updated my debian/control, but I'll wait for a second round of feedback before uploading the package to mentors. -- Guilhem.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature