Re: Multiarch support in dpkg really in time for wheezy?
- To: Michael Gilbert <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Multiarch support in dpkg really in time for wheezy?
- From: Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:30:30 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <CANTw=MML9RNfDVMxOwzFojFt6vdjrHYZfx7BPBqi5bRPKA83Kw@mail.gmail.com> (Michael Gilbert's message of "Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:10:55 -0400")
- References: <20111020140126.GA12334@thrall.0x539.de> <20111021092327.GC18929@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> <20111022102531.GA24538@gaara.hadrons.org> <20111029111047.GA32436@upsilon.cc> <CANTw=MML9RNfDVMxOwzFojFt6vdjrHYZfx7BPBqi5bRPKA83Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Michael Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> What worries me is that there is multi-arch work in dpkg, work that has
>> its origins in Debian. That work is ready enough to be deployed in
>> popular Debian derivatives such as Ubuntu, but is not in Debian proper
>> yet. That is bad for Debian morale and should be avoided. Moreover, that
>> work is also considered ready enough by other dpkg co-maintainers, by
>> the Release Team, and by various porters, which have all asked multiple
>> times to have that work in the Debian archive.
> You could also make a case from a terminological perspective as well.
> Unstable is where development in Debian is supposed to happen, so it's
> perfectly acceptable to upload unfinished/unstable changes, and if you
> happen to break something (at least with dpkg) you'll have hundreds of
> eyes looking at what you broke and trying to figure out how to fix it.
> So anyway, don't worry so much about breaking unstable. That's what
> its there for.
> Best wishes,
Screwing up dpkg in unstable is too anoying to too many users and really
But yes, multi-arch dpkg is way overdue.