Bug#632221: Add cross-dependency satisfaction to apt
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:42, Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> wrote:
> So the implementation work needed is
> 1) to parse build-dep modifiers separated by a ':' (as for the existing
> :any in Depends). These will ultimately include all architecture
> names, but currently we just allow :any and :native.
You mean build-deps like pkga:i386, pkgb:armel, right?
You hopefully don't ask for pkga:!hurd-any …
Terminology in the Spec mentions ":same" and ":both". What's that?
And more important: Do you need it or is it a left over.
> Here is a page which provides some useful test cases:
> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/DevPlatform/CrossCompile/CrossDependencyList
Could the Packages-stanzas for these packages be added
to the page, so that a reader don't have to guess that lib's are all
M-A:same - and that all other packages are not multi-arched as M-A:allowed
would let them end up in the other column…
(the dependency-cycle between table and examples is just to hard to break)
Further more, could the usage of "Native/Cross deps" be replaced
with "DEB_{BUILD,HOST}_ARCH" or something similar.
For someone like me who has never even tried (successfully) to cross-
compile something the mixture of terminologies is a bit confusing.
And as alsa-lib includes a whole lot of architecture limited build-deps:
Which host/build arch is assumed in these examples?
And these limits apply to host arch, right?
But to answer at least one question after raising so many new ones:
I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is easy as it includes quiet a bit
of shuffling around architectures and i remember that the build-dep
code isn't the nicest one on earth, but yes could be done and as i
did most of the other MultiArch stuff i guess that is a todo for me…
So whats the status/opinion of dpkg and co. on this?
I recently learned with MultiArch the hard way that implementing a
spec is as easy as walking on water - so is it frozen already?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: