Hi, Samuel Thibault wrote: > I was more thinking about architecture (i386, amd64, arm, etc.) > difference, not OS difference :)
As long as it is Linux, libburn indeed behaves the same, modulo configuration options. Similarly with libisofs, where the presence of development headers or configuration options is significant. With Debian i would expect to find the same headers and options in all Linux arches. > > Is the described situation still suitable for Multi-Arch: foreign ? > I'm not sure which situation you are referring to? The fact that xorriso and the libraries differ in their capabilities on the various supported OSes. In case of Debian i thought mostly of Hurd. > Libraries are sually Multi-Arch: same, meaning they have to be the same > as the packages using them. That's actually already the case for > libburn, libisofs, and libisoburn. The current Multi-Arch headers of libisoburn, libisofs, and libburn source packages were introduced on request of Matthias Klose in 2016: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813020 http://launchpadlibrarian.net/235561045/libburn_1.4.2-1_1.4.2-1ubuntu1.diff.gz > Looking further: cdrskin, xorriso-tcltk, and xorriso-dd-target should > probably also be Multi-Arch: foreign. Seems plausible if xorriso gets it. Dominique: Do you agree ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- If so: I am a bit confused by the presence of a section "libisoburn (1.5.4-3) unstable" in https://salsa.debian.org/optical-media-team/libisoburn/-/raw/HEAD/debian/changelog while libisoburn is at 1.5.4-2 in https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisoburn My cheat sheet says that i shall add new sections with "UNRELEASED" instead of "unstable" and that you change this word when uploading. So i wonder why it is "unstable" but did not make it into Sid or Testing. Shall i add the new changelog entry to 1.5.4-3 and change it back to "UNRELEASED" or shall i make a new "(1.5.4-4) UNRELEASED" ? Have a nice day :) Thomas