On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:40:08 +0000 Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed Jan 14 19:32, Neil Williams wrote: > > > > > How about using (for example) > > > > > > > > Architecture: all [i386 amd64 ppc] > > > > I should just note that this was a suggestion by Goswin von Brederlow. > > > > I'm wondering if the change should be made in the other direction: > > > > Package: acpi-support-base > > Architecture: any > > Depends: acpid [i386|amd64] > > 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. As far as Emdebian is concerned, the only real problem arises solely from acpi-support-base. Every time I update the package, I have to manually remove it from the other architectures to ensure that the repository remains well-trimmed. There should be some mechanism that allows all repository tools to exclude such packages without requiring manual intervention. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp4ahE41GlLg.pgp
Description: PGP signature