Hi, On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 09:42:52PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 April 2003 15:49, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > > You do want to allow both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of libraries to be > > installed, for which you need different package names; you want to avoid > > adding fields to a package's "primary key", so that the dependency tree > > assmebly mechanisms can be left as they are. > > Yes, but what I also want to avoid is having to change every single instance > of 'Depends: libfoo' to 'Depends: libfoo [! x86_64, sparc64, s390x, ppc64, > hppa64], lib64foo [x86_64, sparc64, s390x, ppc64, hppa64]' and then changing > them all again for mips64 ;-). You don't need that. Depends: libfoo will just stay Depends: libfoo. No lib64foo will be pulled in, as it has a DIFFERENT PACKAGE NAME. > What I have in mind is something along the lines of > libfoo 'Provides: libfoo(32bit)' > lib64foo 'Provides: libfoo(64bit)' > bar 'Depends: libfoo($BITSIZE)' > I don't know if it's possible to teach dpkg and the other tools about this. I really have lost all clue of what you think is missing from current behaviour. - lib64foo /already/ provides lib64foo. - bar (a binary 64 bit package) can /already/ depend on lib64foo (and not libfoo). What's the problem? Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Attachment:
pgp_YwlZCsO94.pgp
Description: PGP signature