On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:13:20PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:19:17 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Well, it does mean that you might be lacking important information > > because the other changelog wouldn't be present on the system. > > While the implicit Replaces seems the easy way out, it just seems even > more fragile than the shared files approach. > > And while the binNMU changelog issues might seem like a corner case, > it's just a symptom of something that's not quite right. And after > this was brought up again I started considering that the shared file > approach might have been flawed afterall, even if it might have seemed > neat at the time (it's one of the reasons that part of the code has > not been merged yet). The main reason it was enviaged was to handle the > changelog and copyright files and to avoid needing to introduce an > additional common package per source, for just those two/three files. > > As a side remark, I think at least those two are actual package > metadata and do belong in the .deb control member [0], and as such in > the dpkg database. But that's for discussion on another time, because > that would not fix the issue as upstream changelogs do conflict too, > for example. > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/09/msg00029.html> > > > One thing which no-one yet seems to have suggested is to have > > multiarch:same packages put the changelog in a filename which is > > distinct for each architecture. (It wouldn't have to be the triplet; > > the shorter Debian arch would do.) Perhaps there are obvious reasons > > (which I have missed) why this is a terrible idea, but it seems to me > > that it's something we should consider. > > Instead of this, I'd rather see the shared files approach just dropped > completely, and /usr/share/doc/ files for “Multi-Arch: same” packages > be installed under /usr/share/doc/pkgname:arch/. This would solve all > these problems in a clean way for the common case with just the two or > three mandated files (changelog, changelog.Debian and copyright), if > a package provides lots more files then they should be split anyway > into either a libfooN-common libfoo-doc, or similar. And finally this > would not be really confusing, given that one of the last interface > changes was to make all dpkg output for all “Multi-Arch: same” > packages be always arch-qualified.
If you remove the shared files approach, how do you handle files like lintian overrides, reportbug presubj and scripts, etc. ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120208162922.ga28...@glandium.org