On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 03:29:29PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote: > Steve Langasek skrev: > I just can't see how (with the fixes that went into 1.1.28-1, anyway). > Given that Wine is already fully multiarch-enabled, I've already thought > the conflicts through. In "compatibility" mode, which is what you're > basically seeing there, where I use the multiarch paths, but not the > multiarch fields (after the 1.1.28-1 fixes, anyway), there can be no > coinstallation (since the multiarch fields won't be there) and therefore > no file conflicts (even though this mode will build 32-bit Wine on > amd64). In full multiarch mode (where the Multi-Arch fields will be > enabled, and 32-bit Wine will not be built on amd64), multiarch dictates > that only identical versions can be coinstallable. Ah - you're right, I overlooked the fact that, unlike with most biarch packages, you have the same package name on both amd64 and i386, containing the same files. So yes, there shouldn't be any conflicts here. To avoid conflicts generally, I think Policy still needs to stick by the rule that packages are only allowed to use the multiarch directory for their matching architecture, because in the general case biarch packages using the multiarch directories *will* cause problems. But wine can probably get an exception from the release team if needed, or we can just solve multiarch properly before squeeze is out. :) -- 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