On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It could be a source of subtle bugs if this leads to having
> libfoo:i386 (1.0) + libfoo:amd64 (2.0) + libfoo-data:all (2.0)
>
> But then the proper answer is for the maintainer to put
> a tight dependency “Depends: libfoo-data (= ${source:Version})”.
Err, that's heavily frowned because it breaks binNMUs if libfoo-data is
arch:all, so we must decide on what the best way to deal with it is, and
update best practice and policy accordingly.
Too bad we don't have "lightweight sub-packages". That would just kill the
need for multiarch-same and avoid a lot of nasty issues. You'd shunt all
arch-dependent files to the arch-dep subpackage. Then we'd just have to
decide whether we'd allow binNMUs of subpackages, or do it the Ubuntu way
(which basically boils down to how painful it would be for the
smaller/slower autobuilders to switch from binNMUs to no-source-changes
rebuilds on all arches).
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
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/20120211114746.ga...@khazad-dum.debian.net
