On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > So I would be opposed to making such a change in policy for the time being; > > I think cross-compilers should stick with the traditional cross-compiler > > directories and stay away from the multiarch directories until we have more > > practical experience with multiarch under our belts and can make some > > educated decisions about how we want this to all fit together.
> Would it make any sense then to add an exception for traditional > cross-compiler directories, or should cross-compiling library packages simply > continue using lintian overrides? I don't think such an exception should be codified into Debian policy either; cross compilers have been doing this since before there was an FHS and no one has bothered to bless it before now, so I don't think we should do so when we might finally be near the end of needing these separate non-FHS directories. > One last question: without considering multiarch, what is the situation > regarding headers? Is the proposal in http://bugs.debian.org/542865 still the > intended approach, or is there another solution? There is a discussion at <http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2011/03/msg00151.html>, <http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2011/04/msg00009.html> about how to handle headers. No bug report or patch filed yet. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110430200620.ga14...@virgil.dodds.net
