On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 05:17:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 11:16:56PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:03:48AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > No. > > E.g. this wouldn't solve the problem from #273734 since lilo is also a > boot-loader. > > > -Kev > > cu > Adrian Hi Adrian, if 'boot-loader' was not a real package (not sure if it requires a new catagory or if it fits under meta or virtual) and then when you did: apt-get install boot-loader it (dpkg or apt -- not sure) checked your ARCH and then install the one that 'provides: boot-loader' and matches your ARCH where Package: lilo Provides: boot-loader Architecture: i386 and Package: silo Provides: boot-loader Architecture: sparc And would install lilo on i386 and silo on sparc. The idea is that they both provide similar functionality but are arch dependant. Not sure what to do if more than one package can satisfy the 'provides'. Hope this is not too OT but I'm trying to understand under the hood. -Kev -- (__) (oo) /------\/ / | || * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ ...."Have you mooed today?"...
Description: Digital signature