[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Use of negated arches for dpkg dependencies

On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:03:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> > 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
> > it.
> Adopting a hardline philosophical attitude will not endear you or the 
> projects you're associated with to the rest of the Debian community. 

Your pretension that I "adopt a hardline attitude" is irrelevant to the
discussion (asides from unfoundated).

> Taking a pragmatic attitude now will make it far easier to do it 
> properly in the long term.

You criticise my pragmatic attitude while standing at the same level of
pragmatism. Have you done any effort to fix arch-handling properly in dpkg?

> Yes, in an ideal world Debian wouldn't be 
> Linux-centric - however, it is, and the fact that the Linux ports are 
> the only ones in an even vaguely releasable state gives them a 
> significant degree of priority.

This is an arbitrary claim. From my POV, Debian GNU/KFreeBSD is as near from
a releaseable state than Debian AMD64, not to mention Debian SH which is almost

Robert Millan

"[..] 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)

Reply to: