Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
Hi, On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:32:58 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: [...] > True, but I gave in already for other packages where it might have made sense, > but in this specific case it just doesn't. Thanks for the note. I will do a local repackage and see, if it resolves the dependency problem I am seeing. If it does, I will be happy for my local setups and script the repackaging for the updates. > Regards, > > Rene Cheers Elrond
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
Hi, On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 09:11:39PM +0100, Elrond wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 17:45:18 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > [...] > > Exactly my point since years. I don't see the need in multi-arch since > > years. > [...] > > Okay, I do still think, that we have some technical > discrepancies in our thinkings, but from what I read here, > this can be summarized as: > > You don't want to consider multi-arch at all, so you're > tagging this wontfix. True, but I gave in already for other packages where it might have made sense, but in this specific case it just doesn't. Regards, Rene
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 17:45:18 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: [...] > Exactly my point since years. I don't see the need in multi-arch since > years. [...] Okay, I do still think, that we have some technical discrepancies in our thinkings, but from what I read here, this can be summarized as: You don't want to consider multi-arch at all, so you're tagging this wontfix. I give up here. Cheers Elrond
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:05:40PM +0100, Elrond wrote: > Okay, let's get this more real. My use case: Run amd64 > libreoffice on an i386 system. This is a very old install > and I am trying to migrate it to amd64 step by step. This can be done without multi-arch. And cross-grading while theoretically possible is a nightmare imho :) > But the opposite could also be real: Having an amd64 system > and trying to run the i386 binaries. For example to test > them, without having to setup a full chroot and having to > put everything needed in the chroot. chroot. "Everything needed in the chroot" is base system + LO+dependencies. Same as you would need here anyway. > Or having an x32 system and using libreoffice amd64 on it, > because there's no x32 one. For which you would need the amd64 libs, which you deny to want exactly one step before. > > > If libreoffice-common is M-A-foreign, than > > > libreoffice-common/all[amd64] is allowed to be used instaed > > > of libreoffice-common/all[x32]. Then installing > > > libreoffice-core would work. > > > > And if there was one, the same libreoffice-common would be just there > > in the Packages files so you can install it as "normal". > > No. > > The libreoffice-common.deb is the same. True. > > But libreoffice-core from the secondary arch (i386 in our > new example) depends on libreoffce-common. And it depends > on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign. > The current libreoffice-common will not fulfill that > dependency. You don't get what I say. If you have LO binaries on your arch you also have lo-common. It does not matter whether it's "on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign." You do not need a cross-arch dependency. > > For the rest you can do whatever you want (chroots etc, whatever) > > If the core answer is "Use chroots", then we should have > stopped multi-arch years ago. Exactly my point since years. I don't see the need in multi-arch since years. > > > fonts-opensymbol (from the same source package) is already > > > marked Multi-Arch=foreign, so what's different here? > > > > In that it's a font also generally usable and at least in the past also > > used as a (build-)dependency of other packages. > > Right, dependency in cross architecture situations. > And that's exactly the same here. No, it isn't. Regards, Rene
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
Hi, Okay, let's get this more real. My use case: Run amd64 libreoffice on an i386 system. This is a very old install and I am trying to migrate it to amd64 step by step. But the opposite could also be real: Having an amd64 system and trying to run the i386 binaries. For example to test them, without having to setup a full chroot and having to put everything needed in the chroot. Or having an x32 system and using libreoffice amd64 on it, because there's no x32 one. Anyway, let's continue: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:05:10 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, [...] > > Let's assume an amd64 system. untagged Arch=all packages > > have the implicit arch of the host system, so, they are > > amd64. > > And? Okay, and having enabled i386 binaries as a second allowed arch. So we have amd64 as primary arch and i386 as secondary. [...] > > If libreoffice-common is M-A-foreign, than > > libreoffice-common/all[amd64] is allowed to be used instaed > > of libreoffice-common/all[x32]. Then installing > > libreoffice-core would work. > > And if there was one, the same libreoffice-common would be just there > in the Packages files so you can install it as "normal". No. The libreoffice-common.deb is the same. True. But libreoffice-core from the secondary arch (i386 in our new example) depends on libreoffce-common. And it depends on lo-common either as i386, or as all+multi-arch-foreign. The current libreoffice-common will not fulfill that dependency. Yes, this is not really intuitive, because the same packages would work on a machine, where i386 is the primary arch. This was a long discussion, and there are complex reasons, why this is so. > This is a pure theoretical situation, given there isn't (and probably ever > won't) be a LO for x32. Hope it's now real enough? > > I am actually trying to run different versions of LO on my > > machine for different reasons. And this is currently > > stopping me from doing so. > > How? You can't run different versions of LO in the same paths parallel. But you could run the amd64 version on an x32 system, or, or ... I don't want to run amd64 and i386 on the same machine. > For the rest you can do whatever you want (chroots etc, whatever) If the core answer is "Use chroots", then we should have stopped multi-arch years ago. Really, there's a reason, why multi-arch exists and chroots aren't the answer to everything. > > > No, won't do that. > > > > What exactly would break? What is the real problem you're > > trying to avoid? > > I want to avoid useless Multi-Arch: specifiers. I don't think, they hurt a lot, really. > > fonts-opensymbol (from the same source package) is already > > marked Multi-Arch=foreign, so what's different here? > > In that it's a font also generally usable and at least in the past also > used as a (build-)dependency of other packages. Right, dependency in cross architecture situations. And that's exactly the same here. > Regards, > > Rene Cheers Elrond
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
Hi, On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 21:15:03 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > notfound 852326 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1 > tag 852326 + wontfix > thanks > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Elrond wrote: > > Package: libreoffice-common > > This BTS is not for BPO bugs. *If* you file bugs here, file them with > a proper version. The BTS does NOT know about bpo versions and gets confused. Okay, will take a note for next time. > > Version: 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Hi, > > > > It looks like libreoffice-common offers an architecture > > independent interface to its users. > > No, it doesn't. Except maybe soffice which basically is just a wrapper > script around soffice.bin and "data" It is Architecture=all. So it is very, very likely architecture independent, really. There are only a few cases, where Architecture=all packages that should not be tagged M-A:foreign. > > Would you mind setting it to Multi-Arch: foreign? > > It's usually a matter of adding one line to debian/control. > > > > This would hopefully improve install options for different > > architectures. Like running x32 tools on an amd64 system. > > How? You still need to have the binary "rest" for a working LO. How > would libreoffice-common on/for x32 help? Let's assume an amd64 system. untagged Arch=all packages have the implicit arch of the host system, so, they are amd64. If you want to install libreoffice-core/x32, it depends on libreoffice-common/x32. But libreoffice-common is only available as /all[amd64] (see above). So you can't install libreoffice-core/x32. If libreoffice-common is M-A-foreign, than libreoffice-common/all[amd64] is allowed to be used instaed of libreoffice-common/all[x32]. Then installing libreoffice-core would work. > And I assume the UNO thingies will have severe problems with multi-arch > anyway. The uno-libs3 package isn't a problem. The x32 one can be installed on amd64. Neither is ure. The python thingies could become a problem. This request is one step in the right direction. I am actually trying to run different versions of LO on my machine for different reasons. And this is currently stopping me from doing so. > No, won't do that. What exactly would break? What is the real problem you're trying to avoid? fonts-opensymbol (from the same source package) is already marked Multi-Arch=foreign, so what's different here? Please help me understand. > Regards, > > Rene Cheers Elrond
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
notfound 852326 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1 tag 852326 + wontfix thanks On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Elrond wrote: > Package: libreoffice-common This BTS is not for BPO bugs. *If* you file bugs here, file them with a proper version. The BTS does NOT know about bpo versions and gets confused. > Version: 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1 > Severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > It looks like libreoffice-common offers an architecture > independent interface to its users. No, it doesn't. Except maybe soffice which basically is just a wrapper script around soffice.bin and "data" > Would you mind setting it to Multi-Arch: foreign? > It's usually a matter of adding one line to debian/control. > > This would hopefully improve install options for different > architectures. Like running x32 tools on an amd64 system. How? You still need to have the binary "rest" for a working LO. How would libreoffice-common on/for x32 help? And I assume the UNO thingies will have severe problems with multi-arch anyway. No, won't do that. Regards, Rene
Bug#852326: libreoffice-common: Please add Multi-Arch: foreign
Package: libreoffice-common Version: 1:5.2.4-2~bpo8+1 Severity: wishlist Hi, It looks like libreoffice-common offers an architecture independent interface to its users. Would you mind setting it to Multi-Arch: foreign? It's usually a matter of adding one line to debian/control. This would hopefully improve install options for different architectures. Like running x32 tools on an amd64 system. Note: Architecture=all packages are not Multi-Arch=foreign automatically for various reasons, so they need to be set manually. Cheers Elrond
