On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:30:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > I was wondering how it comes that you don't need the -dev packages of > all the other libs.
Because the only component we need from them are *.so symlinks (headers are provided by the 64-bit version of the *-dev packages). > Now I wonder even more why you only need the .a of > one library while all others only need the *.so. That library is linked staticaly for some reason (maintainer's decision). > The ia32-libs-dev package was removed from amd64 because all its files > got replaced by libc6-dev-i386, lib32z1g-dev, etc. The package was > just empty. > > If we now have something substantial to put into ia32-libs-dev I see > no reason not to resurrect it. We do have some *.so symlinks > already. Including the symlinks for *.so files in ia32-libs is > somewhat broken as they lack the Depends on the 64bit -dev packages > they actually need. But they weren't enough incentive to bring back > ia32-libs-dev. Not a bad idea. Resurrecting it would save us the work of adding symlinks manualy in debian/rules, and also from having to figure out what to do with libicu-dev. > PS: do you have a patch for the wine debian source to build on amd64? > I checked the package and it doesn't have amd64 in debian/controls > yet. Yes, although not complete. See #381341. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
