[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: is dpkg new architecture specifications going to be fixed and documented?


On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:17:31 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> The descriptions for the following are very vague.
> I suggest you reword them to:

Ok, I'll reword them somehow using your suggestions.

> Some examples would be nice too.

There are some examples in the TERMS section about "Architecture Alias".

> > You'll have to depend on a new enough version of dpkg (1.13.17) or
> > conditionally use the feature if that dpkg version is present.
> > 
> > About the bug report, if you find the documentation lacking in
> > dpkg-architecture's man page I can extend it, otherwise please
> > close it.

In fact, I'm wrong, the correct version is 1.13.13.

> please close bug #370830 with an updated manpage.


> Build-Depends is usually a space-delimited list; I assume
> dpkg-architecture does not take a list of architectures; which means
> it needs to be forked every time an architecture string exists.

> I have another concern. dpkg-architecture is a pretty expensive
> program to fork/exec, and I don't think it's realistic to expect
> everyone to be using this code.

I talked about this at the Extremadura Debian Embedded sessions with
Joey Hess, and we thought it would not be needed for now, that does
not mean I cannot add such option, though. I don't think it's that
that expensive either, dpkg-shlibdeps will take way way longer in a
build for example.

But probably the best option is to modify dpkg-checkbuilddeps so that
it can be used by other programs, it could output an apt-get:able list
of packages if succeeding, or the list of packages that cannot be
satisfyied if failing, and you could remove that part of logic from
pbuilder, what do you think?


Reply to: