On 05.12.2016 18:50, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:24:46PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 05.12.2016 18:14, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> I am suggesting that since nothing except for the multlib D runtime >>> packages needs a multilib zlib and there seems to be a very limited use >>> case for them it seems better to just not ship the multilib runtime for >>> D and instead have people who want to build or run non-native D code use >>> multiarch. That's where we want to get to anyway. > >>>> PS: I pinged about a) moving back zconf.h to /usr/include and b) running >>>> dh_makeshlibs for the 64bit multilib variant. Any update on this? > >>> I saw your content free pings. > >> If the ping should have been content free, than the content should be in the >> PS. >> Or please could you tell me what you are missing? > > As we have been discussing it is still not clear to me if I should fix > or remove the multilib packages since it is still not clear to me that > there is a sensible use case for them. As things stand I'm still not > seeing much of a use case here so it seems like the best thing to do > would be to remove the multilibs.
If this didn't become clear, may I suggest to fix the packages for the release instead of removing them? Thanks, Matthias
