Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign

[Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:05:40PM +0100, Elrond wrote:
> 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.

This can be done without multi-arch. And cross-grading while theoretically
possible is a nightmare imho :)

> 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.

chroot. "Everything needed in the chroot" is base system +
LO+dependencies. Same as you would need here anyway.

> Or having an x32 system and using libreoffice amd64 on it,
> because there's no x32 one.

For which you would need the amd64 libs, which you deny to want
exactly one step before. 

> > > 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.

You don't get what I say. If you have LO binaries on your arch you
also have lo-common. It does not matter whether it's
"on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign."

You do not need a cross-arch dependency.

> > 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.

Exactly my point since years. I don't see the need in multi-arch since
years.

> > > 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.

No, it isn't.

Regards,
  
Rene