On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:49:42PM -0700, shawn wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:46:00AM +0000, shawn wrote: > > > Package: libtool > > > Version: 2.4.2-1.1 > > > Severity: important > > > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > > > This is important for cross-building > > > > > > https://launchpadlibrarian.net/84463096/libtool_2.4-4ubuntu3_2.4-4ubuntu4.diff.gz > > > > I think that's just wrong. The /usr/bin/libtool file is generated > > for the current architecture and doesn't support cross-building. > > It's also the only reason this is an arch any package and not an > > arch all pacakge. > > In that case, would Multi-arch: allowed work? > that way the depending package can specify if cross-arch is OK > > or otherwise split off a multi-arch: foreign package, which libtool > would depend on.
I'm currently not sure what to do. I see a few options: 1) Split the arch all part out in libtool-dev. Have libtool Depend on it so I don't break all reverse depends. 2) Keep the arch all in libtool, but split the binary in libtool-bin. 3) Use Multi-arch: allowed 4) Drop the /usr/bin/libtool and change it to an arch all package In case 1 and 3, everybody that has a build-dependency on libtool and cares about this should update their build-dependencies. In case 2 I'm not sure what to do with the Depends. I don't think it makes sense for an arch all package to depend on the arch any package. There also is no real Depends relation. So instead I could just not add a Depends and see what breaks and then deal with that. I'm also not sure how ftp-master feels about packages with only a single binary in it. I'm currently more inclinded to go for option 4. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
