Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
Hi,
Okay, let's get this more real. My use case: Run amd64
libreoffice on an i386 system. This is a very old install
and I am trying to migrate it to amd64 step by step.
But the opposite could also be real: Having an amd64 system
and trying to run the i386 binaries. For example to test
them, without having to setup a full chroot and having to
put everything needed in the chroot.
Or having an x32 system and using libreoffice amd64 on it,
because there's no x32 one.
Anyway, let's continue:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:05:10 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
[...]
> > Let's assume an amd64 system. untagged Arch=all packages
> > have the implicit arch of the host system, so, they are
> > amd64.
>
> And?
Okay, and having enabled i386 binaries as a second allowed
arch.
So we have amd64 as primary arch and i386 as secondary.
[...]
> > If libreoffice-common is M-A-foreign, than
> > libreoffice-common/all[amd64] is allowed to be used instaed
> > of libreoffice-common/all[x32]. Then installing
> > libreoffice-core would work.
>
> And if there was one, the same libreoffice-common would be just there
> in the Packages files so you can install it as "normal".
No.
The libreoffice-common.deb is the same. True.
But libreoffice-core from the secondary arch (i386 in our
new example) depends on libreoffce-common. And it depends
on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign.
The current libreoffice-common will not fulfill that
dependency.
Yes, this is not really intuitive, because the same
packages would work on a machine, where i386 is the primary
arch. This was a long discussion, and there are complex
reasons, why this is so.
> This is a pure theoretical situation, given there isn't (and probably ever
> won't) be a LO for x32.
Hope it's now real enough?
> > I am actually trying to run different versions of LO on my
> > machine for different reasons. And this is currently
> > stopping me from doing so.
>
> How? You can't run different versions of LO in the same paths parallel.
But you could run the amd64 version on an x32 system, or,
or ...
I don't want to run amd64 and i386 on the same machine.
> For the rest you can do whatever you want (chroots etc, whatever)
If the core answer is "Use chroots", then we should have
stopped multi-arch years ago.
Really, there's a reason, why multi-arch exists and chroots
aren't the answer to everything.
> > > No, won't do that.
> >
> > What exactly would break? What is the real problem you're
> > trying to avoid?
>
> I want to avoid useless Multi-Arch: specifiers.
I don't think, they hurt a lot, really.
> > fonts-opensymbol (from the same source package) is already
> > marked Multi-Arch=foreign, so what's different here?
>
> In that it's a font also generally usable and at least in the past also
> used as a (build-)dependency of other packages.
Right, dependency in cross architecture situations.
And that's exactly the same here.
> Regards,
>
> Rene
Cheers
Elrond
Reply to: