On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 03:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > dpkg is not the right place for the Provides, those are a hack, are > overstepping on the package name space, and they should really go. ... > * The second case comes from conflating the two roles of arch:all > packages, saving archive space by avoiding duplication sharing > the same files across arches and shipping truly arch independent > files/scripts. In the iotop case the scripts are not arch independent > even if they are shareable. Restricting it by uninstallability is > just another hack, the users on a package manager frontend will > wonder why they are shown a packages they cannot possibly install, > the Packages files get unneedingly bloated, etc. A possible clean > solution to this could be something like: linux-all, all-i386, etc, > for example which was discussed already during the design of the > arch wildcards. I have now switched iotop to Architecture: linux-any and dropped the Depends: linux. Unfortunately linux-all is not available yet. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part