Hi Chuan-kai, On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 07:42:48PM -0700, Chuan-kai Lin wrote: > 1. bison (the executable) being marked Multi-Arch: foreign is not > inherently broken, since in a cross-build situation we are running the > bison binary in the host (instead of the target) architecture. > 2. The broken part is bison depending on libbison-dev, which cannot > possibly be Multi-Arch: foreign (as it needs to be linked into the > binary being built). > 3. So the desired end state (for both options) is that bison (the > executable binary, whatever its package name) remaining Multi-Arch: > foreign but not depending on libbison-dev. > > Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes, you do. And the question now is: Where to move that dependency? Either the consumers must explicitly depend on libbison-dev (A) or bison is restructured in a way that still provides the library for the right architecture when issuing a dependency on bison (B). Helmut
