Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Thus, marking it as Multi-Arch:foreign should be correct.

Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Add "Multi-Arch: foreign" to the binary package section of libisofs-doc.

Ok, i will add the line in libisofs, libburn, and libisoburn control

Some more feedback about noob versus documentation:

Johannes Schauer wrote:
> You have to click at the small downward arrow at the left of the "Multiarch
> hinter" text.

I saw the mouseover text "Toggle details", but the click only brought me to
because i have Javascript disabled.

Helmut Grohne wrote:
> This is a generic tracker.d.o UI aspect and not specific
> to the multiarch hinter.

Without Javascript the web becomes a much more unexcited place.
Regrettably Iceweasel seems not to offer finely granulated enabling.
A whitelist would be nice.

Johannes Schauer wrote:
> The package libisofs-doc is Architecture: all, does not contain any
> maintainer scripts and does not have any dependencies on
> architecture-dependent packages.

Is there a diagram or table which relates Architecture: and Multi-arch: ?

> "foreign" is no architecture

Architecture: appeared to be nearest to undocumented Multi-arch:.
So i had a look there in the hope to find another link.

> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec

Oh. At least the part  "Binary package control fields" should be in Debian
manuals, too. (Now that i know about it i see the link in the Multiarch/HOWTO.
But that is not connected to https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ and
the link is not overly prominent.)

Coming back to the diagram question:
Doesn't "Architecture: all" imply "Multi-arch: foreign" ?

Thanks to Ubuntu, i now know the answer why one year ago i did not mark
libisofs-doc by "Multi-arch: same" as the other packages stemming from
libisofs. (Possibly lintian kept me from doing it.)

Thank you for the explanations.

Have a nice day :)


Reply via email to