Bug#980217: ipp-usb: should this be Multi-Arch: foreign?
Hi Didier, I don't know how to correctly explain it in terms of Debian packaging rules, but conceptually, yes, ipp-usb:i386 should be satisfied by ipp-usb:amd64 and visa versa. I'll Cc: this conversation to Zdenek, because the same idea may be applied to Fedora packaging too. And probably, the same is true for the ARM32/ARM64 combination. On 2/19/21 8:39 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Hello Alexander, As ipp-usb author; do you have an opinion/advice about this? Many thanks in advance, cheers, OdyX Le samedi, 16 janvier 2021, 12.19:15 h CET Simon McVittie a écrit : Package: ipp-usb Version: 0.9.16-1 Severity: minor A recent update to wine32:i386 on my amd64 system pulled in libsane1:i386, which Recommends ipp-usb. Because ipp-usb is Multi-Arch: no, apt interprets this as wanting to install ipp-usb:i386, which conflicts with ipp-usb:amd64. ipp-usb seems to be a daemon (systemd service) that is contacted via IPC, conceptually similar to avahi-daemon, dbus-daemon or cups - which hopefully means that it doesn't matter which architecture's ipp-usb you have, because libsane1:amd64, libsane1:i386 and libsane1:mipsel all speak the same architecture-independent IPC protocol to communicate with ipp-usb? If that's the case, then ipp-usb should be marked Multi-Arch: foreign, which means that libsane1:i386 Recommends: ipp-usb would be satisfied by ipp-usb:amd64. -- Wishes, Alexander Pevzner (p...@apevzner.com)
Bug#980217: ipp-usb: should this be Multi-Arch: foreign?
Hello Alexander, As ipp-usb author; do you have an opinion/advice about this? Many thanks in advance, cheers, OdyX Le samedi, 16 janvier 2021, 12.19:15 h CET Simon McVittie a écrit : > Package: ipp-usb > Version: 0.9.16-1 > Severity: minor > > A recent update to wine32:i386 on my amd64 system pulled in libsane1:i386, > which Recommends ipp-usb. Because ipp-usb is Multi-Arch: no, apt > interprets this as wanting to install ipp-usb:i386, which conflicts > with ipp-usb:amd64. > > ipp-usb seems to be a daemon (systemd service) that is contacted via > IPC, conceptually similar to avahi-daemon, dbus-daemon or cups - which > hopefully means that it doesn't matter which architecture's ipp-usb > you have, because libsane1:amd64, libsane1:i386 and libsane1:mipsel > all speak the same architecture-independent IPC protocol to communicate > with ipp-usb? > > If that's the case, then ipp-usb should be marked Multi-Arch: foreign, > which means that libsane1:i386 Recommends: ipp-usb would be satisfied > by ipp-usb:amd64. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#980217: ipp-usb: should this be Multi-Arch: foreign?
Package: ipp-usb Version: 0.9.16-1 Severity: minor A recent update to wine32:i386 on my amd64 system pulled in libsane1:i386, which Recommends ipp-usb. Because ipp-usb is Multi-Arch: no, apt interprets this as wanting to install ipp-usb:i386, which conflicts with ipp-usb:amd64. ipp-usb seems to be a daemon (systemd service) that is contacted via IPC, conceptually similar to avahi-daemon, dbus-daemon or cups - which hopefully means that it doesn't matter which architecture's ipp-usb you have, because libsane1:amd64, libsane1:i386 and libsane1:mipsel all speak the same architecture-independent IPC protocol to communicate with ipp-usb? If that's the case, then ipp-usb should be marked Multi-Arch: foreign, which means that libsane1:i386 Recommends: ipp-usb would be satisfied by ipp-usb:amd64. smcv
