On 05.12.2016 18:14, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:40:29PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 05.12.2016 11:29, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>>> it's available in the GCC packages for a while now. > >>> Sure, but there's a bunch more stuff needed. > >> sorry, I don't understand what you mean. > > Getting full x32 support is going to require more than just the > compiler.
Again, I don't know what this has to do about this issue. I was asking about x32 multilibs in zlib. >> Well, there are less requirements for the C and C++ runtime libraries >> (basically >> glibc), but the D runtime library requires one more, zlib. I'm not sure what >> you >> are arguing here. > > I am suggesting that since nothing except for the multlib D runtime > packages needs a multilib zlib and there seems to be a very limited use > case for them it seems better to just not ship the multilib runtime for > D and instead have people who want to build or run non-native D code use > multiarch. That's where we want to get to anyway. > >> PS: I pinged about a) moving back zconf.h to /usr/include and b) running >> dh_makeshlibs for the 64bit multilib variant. Any update on this? > > I saw your content free pings. If the ping should have been content free, than the content should be in the PS. Or please could you tell me what you are missing?
