On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:53:40PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>, 2014-03-17, 08:28: > >>libcups2-dev is marked as "Multi-Arch: same", but the following > >>file is architecture-dependent: > >>/usr/bin/cups-config > >>An example diff between i386 and amd64 is attached. > >@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ > >exec_prefix=/usr > >bindir=/usr/bin > >includedir=${prefix}/include > >-libdir=${prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu > >-imagelibdir=${prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu > >+libdir=${prefix}/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu > >+imagelibdir=${prefix}/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu > >datarootdir=/usr/share > >datadir=/usr/share > >sysconfdir=/etc > > > >libdir and imagelibdir are used by cups-config to determine the > >path to the static library. Would it be acceptable with multiarch > >in mind to let /usr/bin/cups-config use dpkg-architecture (+depend > >on dpkg-dev) or gcc -print-multiarch (+depend on > >gcc/build-essential) to determine the path for it? > I'm not sure. Dear multiarch-devel@ readers, what do you think? Well, from a multiarch standpoint there's nothing to speak against it; and since this is a -dev package, a dependency on dpkg-dev is not entirely unreasonable. I think it's generally better to get our upstreams to obsolete and drop /usr/bin/foo-config in favor of pkg-config due to issues such as this, but that obviously involves a long deprecation cycle due to other dependent packages using them. So I think Didier's idea here is a reasonably clever hack. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature