Re: Use of negated arches for dpkg dependencies
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> The right solution is of course to be able to specify patterns like
Yes, but this is a long-term solution.
> so you will have a hard time convincing package
> maintainers or Debian policy that this change is desired.
I'd have a harder time sending a report for each package every time a new
non-linux arch is added.
> And given that
> both solutions are "wrong", and the first one is the less ugly _today_, I
> don't see any reason for change.
The reason is that (as usual) we're coping with a work that doesn't belong
to us. If a package depends on a linux-specific one, this is the package
maintainer (or the Linux-based ports maintainers) who should take care about
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)