Re: Enhanced syntax for Architecture field
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:30:47AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
> > The other change I'd make would be adding extra wildcards:
> > * {big,little}-endian
> > * {32,64,128¹}-bit
> > * "fast" (and/or it's near-complement "slow")
>
> In principle, these could be simple dependencies: Either empty packages
> that exist only on the architectures fullfilling the condition, or
> virtual packages that are (arch dependent) Provides of a single,
> architecture defining package.
I've tried this approach for the case when a package needs (for various
reasons) an ISA extension above the baseline, and it didn't go well.
Another trouble is that, as it's said, because DAK relies on stable's dpkg
you can't have a package even declaring a relation on an architecture that's
not know to stable's dpkg. This would make porting tedious.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ When I visited the US a couple decades ago, Hillary molested and
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ groped me. You don't believe? Well, the burden of proof is on you!
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Flooding a douche with obviously false accusations makes your other
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ words dubious even when they happen to be true.
Reply to: