Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
> documented/defined"):
>> It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
>> in Debian.
>
> They are now documented on the wiki, as previously noted in this
> thread.
>
>> The bug is also in the upstream code since upstream does not document
>> the tuples and we inherited that from them.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. In which upstream package,
> shipped by Debian, do you think this documentation should be ?
> Are you saying that this bug report should now be regarded as a
> request to move the documentation from the wiki to some source
> package ?
Yes, like Jonathan wrote:
Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
>> It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
>> in Debian.
>
> Fine, reassigning to policy.
>
> Never say I didn't do anything for you... :)
>
> Policy maintainers, see http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples for a
> nice table to incorporate. Ultimately we would like to see this,
> along with some more text to make it precise, in some LSB document
> such as the FHS.
>
> Thanks for your work, and hope that helps,
> Jonathan
I was more thinking along the line of forwarded, as in filing it in the
upstream BTS someone mentioned before and getting in touch with the FHS
people and convince them to add them. Obviously just setting the tag
alone is not doing anything to resolve the issue.
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> For one thing a bug can always be fixed in Debian wth enough work if it
>> is fixable at all. [...]
>
> Should I file a bug in the Debian BTS about the fact that my
> employer's Microsoft Exchange server corrupts emails ?
>
> I really don't see the difference, in principle ...
The difference is that Debian does not contain Microsoft Exchange but it
does contain the FHS and other LSB stuff.
> To be honest what I mostly seem to understand from your contributions
> to this bug a general but rather unfocused hostility to multiarch. It
> is of course fine for you not to like multiarch. But the purpose of
> the BTS is not to be an outlet for gripes; if it were I have plenty of
> my own. The purpose of the BTS is for us to track specific problems,
> the correction of which lies in our power.
He said to the person advocating multiarch for the last 6 years.
Clearly I'm not the person to convince others to add multiarch tupples
to their specs. So someone with decent debating skills please pick up
this issue and get in contact with the FHS/LSB people.
> But I'm wasting too much of everyone's time arguing about the state of
> this now-non-bug. It would be better just to let it sit and rot in
> the BTS so this will be my last message here.
>
> Ian.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
