Wanted to bubble up this and wished to know where we are on this. Is there a consensus on the preferred wording finally?
On 23/05/26 7:51 pm, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Sat, 2026-05-23 at 16:29:50 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: >> On 23/05/26 4:16 pm, Sean Whitton wrote: >>> Nilesh Patra [22/May 7:58pm +0530] wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>> Thanks, I didn't realise this was waiting on us. >>> >>> How about putting the 'should' first and the information later: >>> >>> The ``Multi-Arch`` field should not be added to the binary package >>> sections for udebs because it does not apply to them. >> >> Done. >> >> I have attached 2 patches, please choose the one that sounds best :) >> >> Please take a look and let me know if this work. Otherwise please >> also tell me if further changes are required. > >> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> index 69467c4..03b1c29 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> @@ -1381,8 +1381,10 @@ 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 should not be added to the binary package >> +sections for udebs because it does not apply to them. >> +The permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and >> ``allowed``. Their semantics are described in the following sections. >> >> .. _s-f-Multi-Arch-no: > > To me this still has the issue I pointed out in an earlier mail. > >> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> index 69467c4..124ea96 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 apply to udebs and should be omitted. >> +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 I still prefer this formulation (or wording variations conveying > the same). So I'd second this or any wording variations over it. > > Thanks, > Guillem
