Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 02:38:54PM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: > The issue then being that Lintian can say very little about the > dependencies of a given packages (except if it has none).
I agree. For this reason I implemented the check outside lintian on top of dedup.debian.net (branch multiarchhints). Making the data easily available to developers is the next step and lintian is in a far better position here. > So the only cases we can reliably argue about are: > > * No dependencies at all > * No dependencies outside packages built from the same source Even that approach has false positives of two kinds. * libblas-common (is not arch:all, but still illustrates the point) is used to enforce a same-architecture restriction on downstream packages. Changing its Multi-Arch value breaks its purpose. I believe that the tag cannot sanely cover such cases and thus needs to be overrideable. I will use a manual blacklist for such cases. * locales (does have some dependencies, but still illustrates the point) has maintainer scripts that process the architecture independent package content in an architecture dependent way during installation. Thus marking it M-A:foreign would be wrong. See #669188 for the gory details. The obvious answer to this problem is to limit the tag to packages without any maintainer scripts. Now we see another benefit of Niels work on removing maintainer scripts. :) > I could be wrong, but it smells like a fairly small target set we can > reliably deal with. You'll be surprised to learn that this fairly small target will hit 3500 binary packages. We do have a lot of packages that (sometimes mistakenly, e.g. tailor or ruby-rd) have no dependencies. In particular, this will generally hit many *-data and *-common packages which are of particular interest to e.g. cross building. If you do the extended dependency analysis (while still precluding packages with maintainer scripts), you end up with 4400 hits. So the approximation is indeed fairly good. I do caveat though that the tag is only correct if the absence of dependencies is indeed correct (and often enough it isn't). The tag description (if read by anyone) needs to ask maintainers to double check whether there really are no dependencies. Despite these considerations I believe that the tag would be useful for improving multiarch in Debian. This mail should answer the open issues that lead to the moreinfo tagging. If anything is still missing, readd the tag and Cc me. Helmut
