On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:08:39PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes ("Handling Multi-Arch packages that must be installed
> for every enabled architecture?"):
> > That would solve the problem for the couple of cases it has come up in,
> > but it seems far from ideal; I'd welcome an cleaner alternative
> > solution. Notably, this doesn't work well for plugin packages for
> > libraries less critical than glibc; it's not even ideal for PAM, as not
> > every enabled architecture will have packages depending on libpam0g.
> > The real dependency is "if any package on the architecture depends on
> > package X, and package Y is installed, package Y:arch must be
> > installed", but that's excessively complicated.
> >
> > Any ideas on how to solve this problem?
>
> I don't have really good suggestions, but I wanted to mention two
> additional problems which are very nearby:
>
> * LD_PRELOAD hacks need their .so installing for all architecture "for
> which they are going to be used" (whatever that means)
Such as fakeroot and fakechroot?
> * The language plugin problem.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean languages that have native-code
plugins?
- Josh Triplett
