Bug#427278: marked as done (gcc-4.2-base: should it better be arch: all?)
Your message dated Sun, 3 Jun 2007 10:59:45 +0200
with message-id <18018.33537.341732.51660@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Bug#427278: gcc-4.2-base: should it better be arch: all?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gcc-4.2-base
Version: 4.2-20070528-1
Severity: normal
When I look at the content of gcc-4.2-base I wonder if it should
better be arch: all instead of arch: any. Are there reasons for arch:
any? I'm porting to a new architecture and for me it would be useful
to have it arch: all, because gcc-4.2-source depends on it and is also
arch: all.
Martin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Martin Koeppe writes:
>
> Package: gcc-4.2-base
> Version: 4.2-20070528-1
> Severity: normal
>
> When I look at the content of gcc-4.2-base I wonder if it should
> better be arch: all instead of arch: any. Are there reasons for arch:
> any? I'm porting to a new architecture and for me it would be useful
> to have it arch: all, because gcc-4.2-source depends on it and is also
> arch: all.
no, dependency handling is easier; an uninstallable arch all gcc-base
package hurts on archs where the current package is not yet built. see
xulrunner and texlive for bad examples.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: