* Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-...@web.de) [090809 17:43]: > Andreas Barth <a...@not.so.argh.org> writes: > > * Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-...@web.de) [090809 06:44]: > >> My plan is that it will be reduced to nothing as stages of multiarch > >> get implemented and finaly be removed. But multiarch will need time to > >> get there and ia32-apt-get probably will add extra value to it until > >> multiarch can enter round 2 after having been around for a full stable > >> release cycle. > > > > Can you please say how you pkan the different stages of multiarch, and > > when are they due? Is this plan coordinated with someone (release > > team, ftp team, dpkg maintainer, ...)? > > I don't think that is really relevant to the question of wether > ia32-libs-tools should be in the archive or not. Right now there is no > multiarch and right now ia32-libs-tools is a valuable tool for many > users. Even if there would be absolutely no plan to support multiarch > it would be just like ia32-libs, ia32-libs-gtk, dpkg-cross or apt-cross.
Well, e.g. if we would learn from the discussion that ia32-libs-tools will be in the archive only till end of August anyways, I think our decision is quite obvious. [ resorted ] > > Also, is "multiarch" (Goswin) the same as "multiarch" (dpkg)? > > Make that "multiarch" (Tollef) and "multiarch" (Ubuntu). The > difference between the old and the new proposal is superficial. The > part that affects ia32-libs-tools is that "Multi-Arch: yes|no|unset" > became "Multi-Arch: same|foreign|unset". From a coding point of view > it really makes no difference which of the two will be used and > whatever dpkg/apt will use I will use. So basically everything (except some values in apt) is the same? Did Tollef agree to the steps below? > - Adding support to libapt to download binary-<arch>/Packages for > multiple architectures and extending the sources.list format to > include [arch=i386] syntax. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=536029 > > If this is added then the ia32-apt-get, ia32-aptitude, ia32-synaptic > wrappers can stop running multiple instances of apt-get to update > the packages lists and use just Apt::Update::Post-Invoke. People > can keep the wrappers or create an /etc/apt.conf.d/ia32-apt-get > and use the plain versions. Is there any feedback from the apt maintainers on that? I cannot see anything in the bug report. > - Adding support in libapt / dpkg to support package:arch and allowing > libfoo:i386 and libfoo:amd64 to be coinstalled. Doesn't need > handling of /usr/share/* nor handling the Multi-Arch field nor all > the implicit package relationship magic multiarch involves. No bug report yet I assume? Is this already discussed with the appropriate maintainers? > - Moving libraries from /usr/lib/ to /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) in > individual packages. > > If this is done (like experimental wine has just done) then > ia32-libs-tools can stop moving files from /usr/lib to > /usr/lib32. This sounds non-breaking to me. Has this been discussed somewhere already? If so, how about doing "the usual" developer motivations, like a (dynamic) page which libraries need to be changed, plus lintian check? Do the glibc maintainers agree to change? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
