On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 11:43 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:08:02AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 04:14 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > > This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as > > > "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate > > > bug for this. Feel free to retitle/merge if you think otherwise. > > > > > > The changes are pretty straightforwarded, but they should be enough to fix > > > most of the concerns that porters had with the limitations of dpkg architecture > > > handling during the last few years. > > > > > This patch looks incomplete? It only touches the dpkg-dev part of dpkg, > > and doesn't change the handling of dpkg itself. > > As I just said to Goswin, my patch doesn't modify the way dpkg handles > architectures internaly. dpkg-genchanges uses Cpu/System logic to determine > wether we can build a package, but when generating DEBIAN/control it will add > an "Architecture" field set to DEB_HOST_ARCH. > More accurately, dpkg-genchanges determines what we probably just built; it's not used to decide what to build, and what not to build, your rules file has to do that. So your changes don't remove "Architecture: all"? How would somebody express anything? "Architecture: any" still? What about (e.g.) dpkg-checkbuilddeps and dpkg-gencontrol ? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part