Hi! On Sat, 2026-05-23 at 16:29:50 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > On 23/05/26 4:16 pm, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Nilesh Patra [22/May 7:58pm +0530] wrote: > >> Hi Sean, > >> > >> As per discussion on the IRC, we are waiting for you to tell us which > >> wording > >> you'd prefer out of all the iterations. > >> > >> Could you let us know? Consider this a gentle nudge. > >> > >> [18:41:04] <helmut> feels more like policy editors needing a ping here in > >> the sense that they might pick their preferred wording and we'd just > >> second it > >> [18:53:21] <guillem> ack, AFAIR the new wording seemed way better, but > >> given that I'm not a native speaker (and the editors are) at this point of > >> nitpicking/wordsmithing, that's what I'd rely on them for :) > >> [19:51:54] <gargantua_kerr> I was under the impression that policy editors > >> will pick it up after you folks second it... > >> [19:52:18] <gargantua_kerr> I'll just relay this on the bug report > > > > Thanks, I didn't realise this was waiting on us. > > > > How about putting the 'should' first and the information later: > > > > The ``Multi-Arch`` field should not be added to the binary package > > sections for udebs because it does not apply to them. > > Done. > > I have attached 2 patches, please choose the one that sounds best :) > > Please take a look and let me know if this work. Otherwise please > also tell me if further changes are required.
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 69467c4..03b1c29 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -1381,8 +1381,10 @@ A Debian installation can combine packages from > multiple architectures. > The ``Multi-Arch`` field enables individual packages to declare their > support for this feature, and influences the way dependencies are > handled. It can be declared in binary package sections of a source > -package template control file and in binary package control files. The > -permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and > +package template control file and in binary package control files. > +The ``Multi-Arch`` field should not be added to the binary package > +sections for udebs because it does not apply to them. > +The permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and > ``allowed``. Their semantics are described in the following sections. > > .. _s-f-Multi-Arch-no: To me this still has the issue I pointed out in an earlier mail. > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 69467c4..124ea96 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -1381,8 +1381,9 @@ A Debian installation can combine packages from > multiple architectures. > The ``Multi-Arch`` field enables individual packages to declare their > support for this feature, and influences the way dependencies are > handled. It can be declared in binary package sections of a source > -package template control file and in binary package control files. The > -permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and > +package template control file and in binary package control files. > +The Multi-Arch field does not apply to udebs and should be omitted. > +The permitted field values are ``no`` (default), ``foreign``, ``same`` and > ``allowed``. Their semantics are described in the following sections. > > .. _s-f-Multi-Arch-no: > I think I still prefer this formulation (or wording variations conveying the same). So I'd second this or any wording variations over it. Thanks, Guillem
