Re: How important is "Architecture: any" (Was: Downloads things, ...)
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: Custom Debian Distributions <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: How important is "Architecture: any" (Was: Downloads things, ...)
- From: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:51:12 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0803030940460.26687@wr-linux02>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20080226175431.GA10289@roeckx.be> <email@example.com> <alpine.DEB.1.00.0803021036040.11996@wr-linux02> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 10:51, Andreas Tille wrote:
Well, interesting that you agree, but what is now the solution you
suggest to implement?
... based on packages that are available in i386?
This was what I was working on my way back from Chemnitzer LinuxTage
(Holger, you missed it again. Ask Henning who also was treveling from
Hamburg whether it was worth the effort. ;-) ). I have to test it
first, but I think it fixes all three bugs related to this topic.
As you expect as well as me we will gather bugs about not fullfilled
Recommends on other architectures sooner or later. My long term
plan is to prepare debian/control.d/<arch> files as well as
tasksel.desc.d/<arch> files in the source package and at build
time pick the right one on each architecture. I call it long term
plan because after gaining some experience in parsing Packages
files when doing the autogenerated web pages I think it is better
to rewrite the stuff that auto generates control and tasksel files.
But this rewrite will need reasonable testing and verification which
should not be done under preasure of an open RC bug which is currently
the case. So I try to fix the current issues before next weekend
as I described above and work for the long term on a real solution.
PS: debian-custom list in CC - would love to continue this general