On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 20:42 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> reopen 252657
> # more clarification needed, I do not intend to play BTS ping-pong
>
Uh, my bad -- the "-done" on that was accidental. This bug should
remain open.
> On 2005-03-18 Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 17:36 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [...]
> > > | dpkg (1.10.11) unstable; urgency=low
> > > | * All dependency fields parsed by controllib.pl support [arch]
> > > | specifiers. If the arch specifier doesn't apply for the current
> > > | arch, then the item will not be added to the internal list structure
> [...]
> > > | Allow for per-arch generated dependency fields. Closes: #170575
>
> > > This does not work (anymore), dpkg will generate a package without
> > > *any* depends if e.g.
> > > "Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, debconf,grub[i386]"
> > > is used in debian/control.
>
> > This has nothing to do with regexs; this is simply that arch-specific
> > dependencies are not permitted in anything but Build-*.
>
> I did not write anything about "regexs", I don't understand your first
> comment.
>
Adam wrote that this is because of a parser error, that is not true, the
parser is fine. dpkg simply doesn't support per-arch dependencies.
> So there are three possibilities:
>
> * dpkg 1.10.11 did not add support for arch-specific entries in
> *Depends* and closing 170575 with dpkg 1.10.11's changelog was an
> error.
>
From what I can tell, this is correct. Support for per-arch BUILD
dependencies was added, not general dependencies.
Support would be "simply" a matter of passing 1 to the "witharch"
parameter -- however I suspect the consequences of that are far more
reaching.
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