Hi Craig, On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 08:40:07AM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:07:49PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > procps is marked as "Multi-Arch: foreign", which means it's allowed > > to satisfy the dependencies of a package of a different architecture > > than itself. This implies that such package must not include any > > public shared libraries. > Is this written up anywhere.
> Steve, you were the one to say use this tag. Is there a different rule > in Ubuntu? No different rule, I was merely blissfully unaware of the presence of libproc at the time I added it. > > Please move the shared library into a separate package. > That seems excessive to move one file into its own package. Probably > tagging it different would be better. Right. I would suggest tagging procps Multi-Arch: allowed instead of Multi-Arch: foreign then, per <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec#Extended_semantics_of_per-architecture_package_relationships>. Normally I would insist that a shared library should be split out into a separate package so that folks doing cross-compiling can install a foreign-arch libproc-dev without having to remove procps from their environment, but in this case I think it's probably not worthwhile, because there seem to be only three packages anywhere that build-depend on libproc-dev. Multi-Arch: allowed should be sufficient for the foreseeable future. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
