Re: New `dpkg --print-subarchitecture' option
- To: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>, chris@fluff.org, Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: New `dpkg --print-subarchitecture' option
- From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:16:46 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20000926151646.C3798@kitenet.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>, Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>, chris@fluff.org, Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20000921014407.A18374@cistron.nl>; from wichert@cistron.nl on Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:44:07AM +0200
- References: <[🔎] 20000921001045.B661@ulysses.dhis.net> <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.21.0009202319250.20640-100000@willow.armlinux.org> <[🔎] 20000921014407.A18374@cistron.nl>
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > as `dpkg --print-installation-architecture' seems a fairly common way
> > to determine the architecture!
>
> I'm extremely tempted to remove that code from dpkg 1.7.. I'll
> definitely remove it before woody releasses.
On my system, a sizable number of postinst scripts (12) use that option.
How do you plan to not break all such packages?
Also, I use it as follows in dpkg-repack:
# Add an Architecture: field
if (!$arch) {
$arch=`dpkg --print-installation-architecture`;
chomp $arch;
}
$info.="Architecture: $arch\n";
Should I be using something else, like dpkg-architecture, instead?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: