On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:59:26PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:27:20AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > On 28 July 2014 06:38, <santi...@debian.org> wrote:
> > > I've just uploaded a new bzip2 revision and I think I need to revert a
> > > change. bzip2 used to build cross architecture lib{32,64}bz2* packages,
> > > but multiarch has obsoleted them. To stop building those packages (and
> > > close #736815), and to look for a smooth transition, I added
> > > conflicts/replace/provides control fields in the -1.0 and -dev packages.
> > > But I realized that those fields were wrong, at least useless (I also
> > > found [1]). So, to be sure, should I just drop the old lib{32,64}bz2*,
> > > without any transition mechanism? (no other package depends on them
> > > now.)
> > Whilst not policy [*] compliant, you can keep old lib{32,64}bz2*
> > packages as empty & dummy transitional packages that depend on the new
> > multi-arch packages e.g. libbz2*:i386. That however, may be confusing
> > if one doesn't have multiarch for i386 enabled, for example, since
> > that package will not be available to be installed.> I guess you could offer lib32bz2 as a transitional package on the 32bit > arch, depending on libbz2 of its own arch and vice versa for lib64? That would require an architecture change of the package on upgrade, which I don't believe is going to go very smoothly. It certainly wouldn't automatically be considered an upgrade by apt. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
