Hi Sean, As per discussion on the IRC, we are waiting for you to tell us which wording you'd prefer out of all the iterations.
Could you let us know? Consider this a gentle nudge. [18:41:04] <helmut> feels more like policy editors needing a ping here in the sense that they might pick their preferred wording and we'd just second it [18:53:21] <guillem> ack, AFAIR the new wording seemed way better, but given that I'm not a native speaker (and the editors are) at this point of nitpicking/wordsmithing, that's what I'd rely on them for :) [19:51:54] <gargantua_kerr> I was under the impression that policy editors will pick it up after you folks second it... [19:52:18] <gargantua_kerr> I'll just relay this on the bug report On 16/05/26 8:24 am, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > > On 16/05/26 8:13 am, Guillem Jover wrote: >>> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >>> index 69467c4..0f5933c 100644 >>> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >>> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >>> @@ -1381,8 +1381,9 @@ A Debian installation can combine packages from >>> multiple architectures. >>> The ``Multi-Arch`` field enables individual packages to declare their >>> support for this feature, and influences the way dependencies are >>> handled. It can be declared in binary package sections of a source >>> -package template control file and in binary package control files. The >>> -permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and >>> +package template control file and in binary package control files. >>> +The ``Multi-Arch`` field does not affect udebs. >>> +The permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and >>> ``allowed``. Their semantics are described in the following sections. >>> >>> .. _s-f-Multi-Arch-no: >> >> I think this is better than the previous iterations, but it feels a >> bit vague, because it describes the effect that Multi-Arch has, which >> then makes not using them implied. Perhaps better to be more explicit >> about it? What about something along the lines of? >> >> "The Multi-Arch field is not relevant for udebs, and should thus not >> be used on them." >> >> Although I feel there's something cumbersome about that phrasing, so >> probably a better wording can be found. > Attached another patch to match the phrasing. Let me know if this could > make the cut :) > > Best, > Nilesh
