Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Julian Gilbey Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Build and run-time triplets Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:40:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Jul 24 19:30:57 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.21 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -4.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20110 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Yt2d4q/snz7CeauW@d-and-j.net Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 28 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 20:30:42 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14276 On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 11:41:56PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > [...] > > > > I got all of the triplets working, but was then stymied when I tried > > to specify Multi-Arch: same in the control file. I got a lintian > > warning: multi-arch-same-package-calls-pycompile > > It seems that since the pybuild system (via dh_python3) adds a > > py3compile command to the postinst of the package, then I can't safely > > use Multi-Arch: same. > > > > I don't know if this is the case for all python3 Arch: any packages > > with compiled extensions; > I think the tag desciption has a good step-by-step explanation why does > the tag exists. > But your package is not a "package with compiled extensions", is it? Yes, it's got compiled extensions (Cython) in addition to this non-Python .so library file. > > are they all effectively Multi-Arch: no? Is this worth thinking about > > in the longer term? > What do you propose? I think the fix to bug #812228 might have done the job nicely ;-) Best wishes, Julian