Hi,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 21:15:03 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> notfound 852326 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1
> tag 852326 + wontfix
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Elrond wrote:
> > Package: libreoffice-common
>
> This BTS is not for BPO bugs. *If* you file bugs here, file them with
> a proper version. The BTS does NOT know about bpo versions and gets confused.
Okay, will take a note for next time.
> > Version: 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It looks like libreoffice-common offers an architecture
> > independent interface to its users.
>
> No, it doesn't. Except maybe soffice which basically is just a wrapper
> script around soffice.bin and "data"
It is Architecture=all. So it is very, very likely
architecture independent, really.
There are only a few cases, where Architecture=all packages
that should not be tagged M-A:foreign.
> > Would you mind setting it to Multi-Arch: foreign?
> > It's usually a matter of adding one line to debian/control.
> >
> > This would hopefully improve install options for different
> > architectures. Like running x32 tools on an amd64 system.
>
> How? You still need to have the binary "rest" for a working LO. How
> would libreoffice-common on/for x32 help?
Let's assume an amd64 system. untagged Arch=all packages
have the implicit arch of the host system, so, they are
amd64.
If you want to install libreoffice-core/x32, it depends on
libreoffice-common/x32. But libreoffice-common is only
available as /all[amd64] (see above). So you can't
install libreoffice-core/x32.
If libreoffice-common is M-A-foreign, than
libreoffice-common/all[amd64] is allowed to be used instaed
of libreoffice-common/all[x32]. Then installing
libreoffice-core would work.
> And I assume the UNO thingies will have severe problems with multi-arch
> anyway.
The uno-libs3 package isn't a problem. The x32 one can be
installed on amd64.
Neither is ure.
The python thingies could become a problem.
This request is one step in the right direction.
I am actually trying to run different versions of LO on my
machine for different reasons. And this is currently
stopping me from doing so.
> No, won't do that.
What exactly would break? What is the real problem you're
trying to avoid?
fonts-opensymbol (from the same source package) is already
marked Multi-Arch=foreign, so what's different here?
Please help me understand.
> Regards,
>
> Rene
Cheers
Elrond
