Re: Bug#796660: Binaries in binary packages match the architecture
* Simon McVittie: On 23/08/15 11:31, Florian Weimer wrote: For example, shipping i386 binaries instead of amd64 binaries is not acceptable, even though these programs might run with the default Debian kernel. This does not match current practice in all cases: multilib (lib32gcc, etc.) has a lot of i386 libraries in x86_64 packages and similar situations. Things like wine and mingw also don't work without foreign binaries, although those at least aren't binaries from a Debian architecture. Shouldn't those go away because we now have true multiarch? Is there a problem you are aiming to solve with this requirement? Do any maintainers not realise that packaging wrong-architecture binaries without a good reason is undesired? Yes, smlnj.
Re: Bug#796660: Binaries in binary packages match the architecture
On 23/08/15 11:31, Florian Weimer wrote: For example, shipping i386 binaries instead of amd64 binaries is not acceptable, even though these programs might run with the default Debian kernel. This does not match current practice in all cases: multilib (lib32gcc, etc.) has a lot of i386 libraries in x86_64 packages and similar situations. Things like wine and mingw also don't work without foreign binaries, although those at least aren't binaries from a Debian architecture. Is there a problem you are aiming to solve with this requirement? Do any maintainers not realise that packaging wrong-architecture binaries without a good reason is undesired? Policy doesn't need to forbid every possible packaging error. S
