Re: arch-specific dependencies and M-A: foreign
I think the rest is covered in my previous replies, otherwise I can
tackle specific points I might have missed or that might be unclear.
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 15:39:14 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting David Kalnischkies (2015-04-17 11:27:07)
> > My personal opinion is (unsurprisingly perhaps) APT's interpretation as the
> > point of M-A: foreign is satisfying dependencies of another architecture. If
> > there really is a meaningful difference between architectures a
> > reverse-dependency could observe, perhaps bar should be M-A: allowed instead…
> Yes, if bar:amd64 would not also really provide bar:i386, then it should not be
Ah, I guess this might be where the different interpretations come
from. The way I see it, a M-A:foreign has a defined architecture,
which is relevant, because you might need to run it, and it does not
really provide :any, it is just able to satisfy unqualified
dependencies. When you explicitly provide another arch then *that*
counts as actually providing that arch.