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

Bug#585767: Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match armel or powerpcspe correctly



retitle 585767 Meta Bug: Convert all deps on type-handling to arch-wildcards and remove type-handling
severity 585767 wishlist
thanks

On Jun 21, 2010, at 15:56, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 08:35:14PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> * Aurelien Jarno | 2010-06-14 12:00:14 [+0200]:
>>>>  libudev-dev (>= 0.139) | not+linux-gnu,
>>>>  libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) | linux-gnu,
>>> 
>>> I don't think it's a bug. The system type on those architectures is
>>> "linux-gnuspe" or "linux-gnueabi", not "linux-gnu". If you only want to
>>> match on the OS, you should use the "linux" and "not+linux" instead.
>> 
>> This make sense.
>> 
>> So I'm going to mass open bugs against every package which uses
>> linux-gnu and tell them to use linux-any which becomes policy once
>> #530687. Is this intended? There is actually no reason to use linux-gnu
>> instead of linux-any, is there[0]?
>> Does the new policy make type-handling obselete since dpkg provides it?
> 
> type-handling has always been a bit hack, with the (long term) goal to
> remove it. It had no replacement until not so long ago, as the build
> daemons software was not able to handle it. Now that it has been fixed,
> we should certainly get rid of it.

Ok, just to confirm, dependencies should be rewritten along these lines:

  "$DEPENDENCY | not+linux-gnu"   =>   "$DEPENDENCY [linux-any]"
  "$DEPENDENCY | not+linux"       =>   "$DEPENDENCY [linux-any]"
  "$DEPENDENCY | linux-gnu"       =>   "$DEPENDENCY [!linux-any]"
  "$DEPENDENCY | linux"           =>   "$DEPENDENCY [!linux-any]"
  "$DEPENDENCY | not+hurd"        =>   "$DEPENDENCY [hurd-any]"
  "$DEPENDENCY | hurd"            =>   "$DEPENDENCY [!hurd-any]"


Since there are already a number of packages with dependencies like these in squeeze, it should be possible for maintainers to apply these changes right now, correct?

Thanks again!

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett




Reply to: