* David Kalnischkies [2012-02-17 17:20 +0100]:
> Why would it be intuitive to add a specific value for the arch attribute with
> apt-get install foo # arch |= native
> but remove all values of the attribute with
> apt-get remove foo# arch &= ~all-architectures
> ?
We had a similar discussion
* David Kalnischkies [2012-02-17 14:15 +0100]:
> You generously left out the paragraph describing how APT should
> detect that the package foo is in fact a library ...
My impression was that you think very library centric. All I wrote was
(in other words), that we should consider non-library pack
* Russ Allbery [2012-02-16 14:55 -0800]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
> > There are still files that differ that do not need to be fixed, for
> > example documentation that contains it's build date.
>
> Every file that differs has to be fixed in the current multi-arch plan.
>
* Russ Allbery [2012-02-16 10:43 -0800]:
> * Users who want to co-install separate architectures will immediately
> encounter a dpkg error saying that the files aren't consistent. This
> means they won't be able to co-install the packages, but dpkg will
> prevent any actual harm from happeni
* David Kalnischkies [2012-02-16 03:59 +0100]:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:39, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> it needs to find and remove foo:*
foo:all (or foo:any) instead of foo:* would save the need to quote it.
> > Actually, why would that be the behavior? Why would dpkg --purge foo not
> > j
* Aron Xu [2012-02-09 01:22 +0800]:
> Some packages come with data files that endianness matters, and many
> of them are large enough to split into a separate arch:all package if
> endianness were not something to care about. ...
Debian Policy, begin of section 5.6.8:
| Depending on context and th
6 matches
Mail list logo
