On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:56:11PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 17:29:22 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > If you remove the shared files approach, how do you handle files like > > lintian overrides, reportbug presubj and scripts, etc. ? > > The same principle that applies to all dpkg output to avoid ambiguity > would apply everywhere, whenever there's a “Multi-Arch: same” package > name that needs to be unambiguous, it just always gets arch-qualified. > The rest would stay as they are.
That is a major waste of space of having multiple copies of identical files with different arch-qualified names. Is that really better architecture to have multiple copies of identical files on user systems? > So, at least for lintian and reportbug, given that these file/dir names > are package name based they would just get arch-qualified when needed. Another major frustration your no-shared-files proposal adds, is the need to split the M-A: same libfoo-dev packages to libfoo-dev-common in order to avoid overwriting /usr/include contents and /usr/bin/foo-config binaries. Our packages are already heavily split slowing down Packages.gz downloads and all other apt operations. Riku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120208175241.ga6...@afflict.kos.to
