[Pkg-owncloud-maintainers] Bug#1091527:

[Paul R. Tagliamonte]

Hey Hefee

I also filed a bug with my comments from the RM, then I closed it in the
morning because I realized I was wrong. Please ignore that bug and my
previous comments. It's all fine. Sorry about that, it's my fault.

Paul


On Sat, Dec 28, 2024, 9:38 PM Hefee <hefee at debian.org> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> thx for removing the bits from unstable to let nextcoud-desktop migrate to
> testing!
>
> I'm a bit puzzled what to do with your response:
>
> > but as a result, it:
> >
> > # Broken Depends:
> > nextcloud-desktop: caja-nextcloud
> >                    nautilus-nextcloud
> >                    nemo-nextcloud
> >
> > Please fix this relationship by arch constraining it and uploading the
> new
> > package. I moved this rm forward since this removal broke "yourself", but
> > this needs to be fixed,
>
> Okay my analysis so far, but I'm still a newbie in the Multi-Arch world:
>
> all those mentioned three packages are arch all and multi-Arch foreign, as
> they only ship one python file and created by the same source than the
> other
> binaries you deleted. They talk to nextcloud-desktop via dbus interface.
>
> IMO you can still run the python script successfully on mips64el , if you
> make
> sure, that nextcloud-desktop in a correct version is installed and you run
> it
> on a different arch.
>
> Also as all three packages make sure, that you need an uptodate nextcloud-
> desktop (<< 3.15.0-1.1~ and >= 3.15.0-1). That makes sure that existing
> installations simply won't update caja-nextcloud etc.
>
> Why do you think I need additionally limit the archs in the Depends filed?
> IMO
> the version constrain is already enough. But maybe I missing some
> aspects...
>
> Regards
>
> hefee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-owncloud-maintainers/attachments/20241229/b35874eb/attachment.htm>