Re: Arch:all package depending on package that isn't Arch:any
2009/1/13 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:30:08 +0100
> "Julian Andres Klode" <jak@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > It would be nice if there were some way of telling the archive software
>> > not to include this package in the archive index on the platforms it
>> > doesn't support, though.
>>
>> My proposal was http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00045.html
>
> And an improved version which doesn't add unnecessary content was
> offered too:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00355.html
>
> How about using (for example)
>
> Architecture: all [i386 amd64 ppc]
>
> This has two advantages over a separate line:
> 1. it doesn't bloat the Packages.gz file (which is v.important for
> embedded)
> 2. it follows existing conventions for such data, e.g. build-depends
> and depends lines, which means that existing tools require fewer
> changes to process the new information
>
> We don't have Build-Depends-Architecture or Depends-Architecture, so
> why consider Install-Architecture? Fundamentally, these are the same
> problem so the same solution would be useful.
>
> What is needed now is for someone to pursue the idea with bug reports
> and patches to get it implemented. Ideas are fine but someone needs to
> do the work of identifying what needs to change and how to get it
> working.
>
If we copy this field 1:1 into the package and the Packages files, many
packages will require patches, and the policy as well. I will try to provide
patches for dpkg, dak, apt and python-apt, as well as the policy.
As this change is not backwards-compatible, the first time we could introduce
such packages would be squeeze+1.
--
Julian Andres Klode - Free Software Developer
Debian Developer - Contributing Member of SPI
Ubuntu Member - Fellow of FSFE
Website: http://jak-linux.org/ XMPP: juliank@jabber.org
Debian: http://www.debian.org/ SPI: http://www.spi-inc.org/
Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/ FSFE: http://www.fsfe.org/
Reply to: