On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:03:48AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 04:54:39PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> >...
> > 3) A package (Arch: all) recommends a package that is available on
> > some of the Debian arches but not on all. Here the question is if a
> > package should be forced to become Arch: any, because of this
> > relation-ship. I'm currently more in favour of leaving this descision
> > up to the maintainer, and don't see it as a serious bug (although it is
> > a bug).
>
> The question is why a package recommends another package which is not
> available on some architectures.
>
> Assume a package would recommend grub which is only available on i386.
> There are two cases:
> - grub is required only on i386
> Recommends: grub | not+i386
> (or some similar treatment during package building)
> - grub is really required
> in this case, the pacakge should be available only on i386
>
> > Gruesse,
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
Hi, would a virtual package help?
grub=i386 silo=sun
boot-loader=grub|silo
where boot-loader is a virtual package
and grub and silo are packages that fulfill the requirement of
boot-loader
-Kev
--
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature