Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> (2016-05-03): > On Tue, 03 May 2016 at 11:23:40 +0200, Francois Gouget wrote: > > A large number of packages, particularly development packages, are not > > multi-arch aware. > ... > > 3.10 Multi-arch support > > > > Packages must be multi-arch aware and architecture-specific > > development packages must be tagged as Multi-Arch: same. > > See <https://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess> if you want to push > this forward. > > However, I suspect the Policy editors will object that Policy normally > documents what is already broadly true, not what someone wants to be true > (even if the desired state is widely agreed to be what the project wants). > > A mass-bug-filing or mass-patch-attaching to make libraries and development > packages Multi-arch: same would be more in line with how things like this > usually go. > > Note that for the subset of development packages that contain > architecture-specific binaries in $PATH (most commonly "foo-config"), it is > not trivial to switch to Multi-arch: same without breaking existing > reverse-dependencies.
Well, sure. But Policy could certainly start containing documentation about multi-arch being a possibility, and how it should be implemented in a given (set of) package(s). A few years back, or right now. :) Making it a should or must (not even sure it makes sense to have that mandatory) would be another long-reaching step. KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
