On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Pino Toscano wrote:
What's the use case for marking libpoppler-dev as m-a: same?
Uh, so I can cross-compile stuff? (aka "gcc -m32" in the simplest case)
Alone it has no value in being so.
Even with libpoppler-private-dev?
Some dependencies may not be multiarch yet (qtbase5-dev) but I don't
think it should prevent from marking libpoppler-qt5-dev (which would
then become co-installable automatically when qtbase5-dev is updated),
and it doesn't concern libpoppler-dev.
- libqt4-dev (for libpoppler-qt4-dev) is not m-a: same safe
That one is likely to disappear before anyone changes it...
- qtbase5-dev (for libpoppler-qt5-dev) is not m-a: same safe
#734677 seems to indicate that this will change soon.
- libglib2.0-dev and the gir stuff (for libpoppler-glib-dev) are not
m-a: same safe
#683593 is not seeing a lot of activity indeed :-(
so it is pointless mark those -dev as m-a: same, for now.
I was hoping that we could parallelize the multi-arch work so we could get
a usable set of multiarch dev packages a bit faster. But if you prefer to
wait for the dependencies of your package, that's of course your choice.
--
Marc Glisse
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
