Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.de...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >>> "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.de...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> 2) Tagging package relationships instead of packages means extending >>>>> the syntax of package relationsships, trusting the binary packages to >>>>> get the depends right >>>> You'll have to do it sooner or later. At least for already mentioned perl, >>>> python and others. Or no? >>> Yes, but how many are there. Perl for example has 2627 reverse >>> depends. How many of those are plugins? >> Don't matter. If even there is literally one package, the new syntax has to >> be >> defined. Once you add it, it doesn't matter - one package uses it or thousand >> of ones. > > Sure. But do you want to alter 10 plugin packages or 2627 packages? > Considering how hard it is to transition has gone into the > considerations too. The best I would imagine is to alter 'Arch: any' to 'Arch: multi' (as Charles suggested) or insert 'Multi-Arch: yes' automatically by the some tool (dak?), as checking co-installableness can be done automatically by simply diffing 'dpkg -c package.deb' for produced arches (one and tricky way), or add them manually to the ~200 libraries you want to transition in the first round - not very hard. For thousand of Perl libraries inserting 'Depends: perl:foreign' could be inserted by ${perl:Depends} substitute requiring binNMUs only. I am not sure for python modules or modules for other interpreters though.
I would still want that multi-arch dependencies would be specified at one straight place, not two. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature