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

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


2013-03-31 13:23, Nicolas Dandrimont:
> 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.
> 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.

It was me who asked about an official documentation. While I have
nothing against the question themselves, I object to including
MultiArch-related questions to templates before its documented in the
Debian policy. I find it unreasonable to expect applicants to dig
answers in implementation details of dpkg/APT/etc. Especially when those
details change over time, some tools have/had sometimes different views
on what the proposec spec actually means ([1], [3]), or it's not clear
what parts of spec are actually supported by different tools ([2]).

That said, I have nothing against committing that to some branch and/or
following up on topic when #687900 is closed.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688863
[2] http://lists.debian.org/deity/2010/08/msg00251.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/deity/2011/06/msg00036.html

Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++ GNU/Linux userspace developer, Debian Developer

Reply to: