Re: Dependencies across architectures
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> "iraf" exists only on selected architectures due to some required
> assembler code for each arch and problems with big endian.
There could be a fallback in C for arches with no assembler yet
and any non-baseline instructions should be detected at runtime.
Upstream should fix the code to deal with endianness correctly.
Please file bugs upstream about these if you didn't already.
> From the description of "Multi-Arch: foreign" I would expect that this
> allows the dependency resolved by using another architecture. However,
> piuparts (and the migration excuses) claim a missing dependency on the
> archs not supported by IRAF.
piuparts.d.o only tests amd64 at this stage, could you quote the error
piuparts gives for you on other arches? I'm guessing you didn't add
the foreign architecture to the chroot that piuparts was using for
testing.
I'm pretty sure the testing migration doesn't support
cross-architecture dependencies, but the release team will hint things
into testing where that is the only thing blocking migration.
> My first thought was to limit the possible archs for python3-pyraf (by
> explicitly setting the arch list and/or build-depending on iraf), but
> this would not require the removal of the packages already build.
Looks like you already tried this option, to get it to work you will
have to ask the ftp-team to remove the obsolete binaries on the arches
where pyraf no longer builds.
https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=pyraf
> And, in principle the dependency should work across archs (f.e. for
> x32). But why does it not work with the specification above?
It will work, but only in dpkg/apt.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: