On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 17:16:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:56:00PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > As long as dependencies are accurate, I don't see how allowing > > co-installation of the same package for two different architectures at > > different versions is any more complicated than pinned to the same > > version. > > I think we're likely to see a lot of bugs introduced in the process of > making the dependencies accurate if we go this route. So instead of > refcounting the files, we move them to a new arch: all package. Ok; now, > suppose some of these files aren't actually architecture-independent: > they're data but they're generated differently on different architectures, > and the library expects the data in its native architecture-dependent > format. (See the parallel thread about "endianness of data files" for > examples.) Doesn't this proposal eliminate one of our best defenses against > this packaging error? Having them kicked back as mismatched files, either > by dpkg or by the archive, seems better to me than letting them land on the > user's system and break at runtime.
While I agree this is a potential issue, it's not a new one at all or specific to multiarchified packages, it's actually inherent to every arch:all package generated from source packages producing arch:any binaries too, regardless of multiarch. Instead of treating M-A:same specially on this, I'd rather see a way to detect this for all current and existing cases instead, if deemed really necessary. regards, guillem -- 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/20120211131828.ga19...@gaara.hadrons.org
