On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:36:09PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It probably should if all of the software or at least most (plus all of
> > the package installation software) supports them properly. Does it?
>
> No. The only support that dpkg has is that those arch-limitations are used
> by dpkg-gencontrol to keep/drop the dependency while generating the
> DEBIAN/control. This means that it can only be used on Arch: any package
> and it means that such dependency that appears in a real .deb will not be
> parsed correctly by dpkg itself.
If I'm reading this correctly, it means that with current
dpkg-gencontrol there is no way for something like "foo [bar]" (in an
arch:any stanza) to reach the "real .deb", right? Then it is safe to
use this kind of dependencies in arch:any packages, as long as
dpkg-gencontrol is used (which is probably 100%-\epsilon of the cases).
If dpkg-gencontrol can be made to fail when arch-specific deps are used
on arch:all stanzas, then we are all set and can recommend the practice
for use in debian/control, can't we?
Anyhow, we have to choose among:
1) document and make the procedure work
2) bug the packages which are using the undocumented procedure
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the
XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature