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

NM Template questions on Multi-Arch [was: NM applicant Nicolas Dandrimont (T&S)]

Hi all,

For context, I'm currently at the T&S step of my NM process, and here's what my
AM has asked me:

* Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org> [2013-03-28 11:30:09 +0100]:

> I have one more small thing to do for you:
> We have not yet spoken about multi-arch during the NM process. Is is due
> to the fact that the current NM templates have no questions regarding
> multi-arch.
> Therefor your job now is to work out at least two questions for the NM
> templates regarding multi-arch and get them accepted into the NM
> templates. HINT: there is #debian-newmaint on irc.debian.org. 

I was not quite sure where to post this, and the friendly folks on IRC directed
me here.

I came up with two (series of) questions about Multiarch, and I'd be glad to
hear any comments, and eventually to get those included. I think those should
be placed in the "Architectures and Libraries" section.


ALM1. What is multiarch? What problem does it try to solve? What changes does
      multiarch imply with respect to the FHS? How do you make sure your
      package is safe for multiarch?

Possible followup, if the applicant only talks about amd64/i386:

Why not just use /lib64? What are the other uses of multiarch?

ALM2. What does the "Multi-Arch: same" field mean? What about "Multi-Arch:
      foreign"? When would you use either of those? Why and how would you
      declare a dependency on the i386 version of libfoo in an amd64 package?


The question of the "official" documentation was brought up. I know that work
is in progress on the policy front (#687900, and a bunch of specific bugs, e.g.
#630174, #636383, #650974, #684672, #621050). Right now, as I understand it,
the "norm" is driven by the implementation of the spec in dpkg.

I think having those questions is worthwile as multiarch has been a big thing
in the wheezy cycle, and will be more and more prevalent during the next.

I'd be glad to hear what others think.

Nicolas Dandrimont

(I'm sure zobel did this to stall me, allowing him to give me the April 1st
questions :>)

BOFH excuse #170:
popper unable to process jumbo kernel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: