Hi, 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 files. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs# 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 :) Thomas
