On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 09:39:22PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:54:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > List the linux platforms. It is more likely some new non-linux > > > > platform shows up (like armeb, kfreebsd-amd64, ...) than a new linux > > > > one. > > > That's..... unspeakably horrible. > > > What we really need is a separation between "OS" and "Architecture" as > > > far as dpkg is concerned. > > Yes, the dpkg maintainers have a patch to do that by extending the semantics > > of the Architecture: field. Other tools need to support the same extensions > > before it can really be used, though. > So until we have it, maybe the right answer would be to create "no-op" > libselinux1-dev and libsepol1-dev packages which can be used to satisfy > the build-depends on our non-Linux ports? That seems more hackish to me than just listing out the 12 official Linux architectures for the time being. You could also do, e.g.: Build-Depends: [...] libselinux1-dev [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc linux-any] and then the porters for the new archs have an added incentive to improve the tools to handle this syntax sooner rather than later ;) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature