On 15.05.2016 21:08, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Source: binutils > Version: 2.25.1-2 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > User: helm...@debian.org > Usertags: rebootstrap > > Hi Matthias, > > please mark binutils-$targettriplet as Multi-Arch: foreign. > > I think that this marking is correct, because the architecture name is > encoded into the binary package name and thus there is no ambiguity > about the interface. It should be possible to use e.g. > binutils-mips-linux-gnu:i386 and binutils-mips-linux-gnu:amd64 > completely interchangeably. > > I think that this marking is necessary, because it is part of our plan > to support cross toolchain translation. Eventually, we will need > binutils-for-host (Arch:any, M-A:same, Depends: binutils-$targettriplet) > in a similar way to src:gcc-cross-support. For that dependency to become > satisfiable in non-trivial ways, we need the M-A:foreign marking on > binutils-$targettriplet. Though, the absence of a patch for > binutils-for-host implies that there is no urgency about this. > > Do you agree with the reasoning and the attached patch? debian/control > needs to be regenerated after applying it.
this now triggers https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/d...@debian.org.html#binutils a lot of lintian warnings.
