Re: Use of negated arches for dpkg dependencies
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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
> > "*-linux-gnu".
> Yes, but this is a long-term solution.
Well, 4+ years, a dpkg rewrite, and dozens of arches make up a long term for
> > 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.
Yes, you. But others would have a harder time if they wanted to add another
GNU/Linux arch. Shifting around work from one person to another is not
exactly a solution to the problem.
> > 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
Well, that argument has some merit.
If you want to change things, I guess the best, maybe the only way, is to
get existence practice changed on a case-by-case basis and then get it
solidified by a Debian policy change.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org email@example.com
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/