On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:05:40PM +0100, Elrond wrote: > Okay, let's get this more real. My use case: Run amd64 > libreoffice on an i386 system. This is a very old install > and I am trying to migrate it to amd64 step by step.
This can be done without multi-arch. And cross-grading while theoretically possible is a nightmare imho :) > But the opposite could also be real: Having an amd64 system > and trying to run the i386 binaries. For example to test > them, without having to setup a full chroot and having to > put everything needed in the chroot. chroot. "Everything needed in the chroot" is base system + LO+dependencies. Same as you would need here anyway. > Or having an x32 system and using libreoffice amd64 on it, > because there's no x32 one. For which you would need the amd64 libs, which you deny to want exactly one step before. > > > 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 if there was one, the same libreoffice-common would be just there > > in the Packages files so you can install it as "normal". > > No. > > The libreoffice-common.deb is the same. True. > > But libreoffice-core from the secondary arch (i386 in our > new example) depends on libreoffce-common. And it depends > on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign. > The current libreoffice-common will not fulfill that > dependency. You don't get what I say. If you have LO binaries on your arch you also have lo-common. It does not matter whether it's "on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign." You do not need a cross-arch dependency. > > For the rest you can do whatever you want (chroots etc, whatever) > > If the core answer is "Use chroots", then we should have > stopped multi-arch years ago. Exactly my point since years. I don't see the need in multi-arch since years. > > > fonts-opensymbol (from the same source package) is already > > > marked Multi-Arch=foreign, so what's different here? > > > > In that it's a font also generally usable and at least in the past also > > used as a (build-)dependency of other packages. > > Right, dependency in cross architecture situations. > And that's exactly the same here. No, it isn't. Regards, Rene
