On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:12:08 +0000 Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed Jan 14 19:56, Neil Williams wrote: > > > The problem with both of these is that if acpid starts working on ppc as > > > well you have to transition acpi-support-base. Ideally the solution > > > shouldn't require an upload to acpi-support-base when the architectures > > > of its dependencies change. > > > > Depends whether the Arch:all package is built from the same source as > > the Arch:any [restricted] package. If so (as with this specific > > example), then the upload problem goes away. > > > > Sounds like we need some figures and real data on this issue. > > In some cases it's a non-problem, yes, but it a lot it won't be, so I'd > still be in favour of a solution which doesn't transition the other > package. It also still allows acpi-support-base to be installed on un-supported architectures (at which point it will just waste space). There does need to be a better solution, I agree. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpKlCbKO2QLo.pgp
Description: PGP signature