On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:24:46PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 05.12.2016 18:14, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I am suggesting that since nothing except for the multlib D runtime > > packages needs a multilib zlib and there seems to be a very limited use > > case for them it seems better to just not ship the multilib runtime for > > D and instead have people who want to build or run non-native D code use > > multiarch. That's where we want to get to anyway. > >> PS: I pinged about a) moving back zconf.h to /usr/include and b) running > >> dh_makeshlibs for the 64bit multilib variant. Any update on this? > > I saw your content free pings. > If the ping should have been content free, than the content should be in the > PS. > Or please could you tell me what you are missing? As we have been discussing it is still not clear to me if I should fix or remove the multilib packages since it is still not clear to me that there is a sensible use case for them. As things stand I'm still not seeing much of a use case here so it seems like the best thing to do would be to remove the multilibs.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
