On 2018-02-16 at 12:31, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-16 at 11:42, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> If I had created separate transition packages for each architecture >> separately (e.g., libcommerr2:i386, libcomerr2:amd_64, etc. I >> belive I would have gotten Lintian errors and complaints that I was >> wasting ftp space on all of our mirrors). > > I'm not sure what the right way to handle this is, but having a > single-architecture or non-architecture-specific transitional package > attempt to substitute for all the cross-architecture dependencies > clearly isn't working. > > I'd be glad to help with figuring out what to do on this, but if > having a "separate" transitional package for each architecture isn't > an option, I'm really not sure what might be... Having thought about it again (in the shower), I suspect that the solution is simply to make the transitional package M-A:same, just as the library package itself is (at least going by my, admittedly extremely limited, understanding of the multiarch spec). It looks to me as if any package which needs its dependencies to be the same architecture as itself - as a library-transition package does - effectively needs to be M-A:same, even if no files within that package vary between architectures. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
