On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:21:19 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 15:41:56 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we > > should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this > > really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked? > > > No. I just didn't want to unblock it until the wine issue was resolved. > > I'm still not convinced ia32-libs-dev is a useful/sane thing to ship. > Providing a working runtime environment for 32bit programs is one thing. > Providing a build environment is another entirely, and the way it has to > mangle .la files (and now .pc too) makes me wonder what other sort of > brokenness it lets through.
Why is it that ia32-libs provides all of these 32-bit libs as a monolithic package anyway? Wouldn't the saner solution be to provide each desired 32-bit lib from the original source package for that lib (for example bzip2 provides lib32bz2, lib32bz2-dev, etc)? In that case ia32-libs is could just be a metapackage, rather than the mess it is currently. Obviously this solution will need to be deferred to wheezy (perhaps as a release goal?) since time is short for squeeze. > I probably won't object to this if the > current breakage gets fixed though, because I'm getting tired of this > package and would rather do something useful instead. What else is currently known broken? > alsa-plugins also build-depends on ia32-libs, does it need a fix for the > new stuff too? what about libvdpau? I'll check these later tonight. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101109114300.46df031e.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
