Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:56:00PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I agree that the extra work of removing "multi-arch: same" for existing >> -dev packages that have been converted is a major downside. And on the >> other hand, the need throughout Debian infrastructure to support the >> very fragile refcount approach would be a downside to that approach. > Which infrastructure do you have in mind? I don't see anything that's > needed besides a dpkg implementation (which we have) and some tools to > sanity-check coinstallability (which 1. we would need anyway, and 2. we > also have a preliminary implementation of). We need a guarantee that gzip will always produce the same output, which we already know isn't the case and which doesn't look sustainable going forward. That's looking rather uncomfortable. The preliminary results there point to that being somewhat problematic. I think we have to do something saner with changelog files eventually regardless, but I'm curious: how did Ubuntu deal with the binNMU problem that Guillem identified? If you binNMU a library on amd64 but not on i386, as near as I can tell that's going to make the library not work for multiarch until the next sourceful upload, no? I think Ubuntu has binNMUs; haven't you run into this issue? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- 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/87zkcqrw2w....@windlord.stanford.edu
