Re: Architecture all
Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Well, I think there's still some question about the general
> secenerio, as follows:
> Package foo is i386 only
> Package bar depends on package foo, but is arch: all
> Should package bar be changed over to arch: i386?
> Personally, I think not - package foo could always get a arch: all
> version someday.
> However, could it be a problem for users of some other architecture,
> who see bar in dselect, try to select it, and get an unfullfilled
> dependancy on foo?
It migth not only be a problem for users, but also it gets downloaded
when one gets all Packages for arch foo or if the Packages for foo
only are mirrored and not the complete distribution with links. It
might save some space on some mirrors and save people the download if
the package depends on whatever the wraped package depends on. In this
case i386 and alpha. (Personally I would vote to remove anything that
gets downloaded but is useless, but thats just my private, selfish
It's perfectly true that the Package itself is architecture all, but
without the availability of dependencies its useless.
Alos we have a similar problem with Packages bla that depend on a
Package foo, that can't be in main. Are those Package bla left in main
or put elsewhere? If Package bla is not left in main, Package should
not be arch all if the dependencies are arch foo. That would be more
May the Source be with you.
PS: Should this go to the policy list?
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .