"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Daniel Ruoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Em Qui, 2006-05-11 às 09:56 +0200, Gabor Gombas escreveu:
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:33:45PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>>> > Why would that not fly?
>>> > Both versions of the arch-independent package could be installed at
>>> > the same time.
>>> /usr/share/foo/bar can't point to two different files at the same time,
>>> so you can't install multiple package versions containing
>>> incompatible /usr/share/foo/bar files.
>>> The only way to support your proposal would be to kill the concept of
>>> arch-independent packages and make everything arch-dependent.
>>
>>And what if dpkg knows about it and handle arch-independant packages in
>>a different way?
>>
>>In fact, if the system is multiarch, dpkg should have a centralized list
>>of which packages are installed for each architecture and which packages
>>are installed for arch: all...
>>
>>But there's still the problem of arch-independant files inside
>>arch-dependant files (maybe an arch-dependant package should not include
>>arch-indenpendant files at all)...
>
> The problem is when foo [i386] depends on bar [all] 1.0,
> but foo [amd64] depends on bar [all] 2.0.
>
> There is simply no good way to have bar [all] 1.0 and bar [all] 2.0
> installed,
> so foo [i386] and foo [amd64] cannot both be installed.
That can not happen in a release. Only one bar can be in testing and
then one of the foos would be uninstallable. Britney prevents that.
MfG
Goswin
PS: I will (and does already anyway) happen all the time in sid
depending on the speed of buildds.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
