Re: which Architecture to select for scripts?
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 08:28:37PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > > I assume if you have a script which depends on an Architecture: any
> > > or more restrictive Architecture:, you still just go ahead and set
> > > Architecture: all and let the dependency make it clear which architectures
> > > it can work on?
>
> > If you mean, your script depends on a package that is architecure: any, or
> > like "Architectre: i386 alpha", then yes. Your script has nothing
> > architecture dependent. This way, if the program you depend on is ported
> > to a new arch, you wont have to change your package.
>
> But wouldn't that create uninstallable packages for the architectures
> where there is no binary? I agree with Ben if the binary package in
> question can theoretically be compiled on all archs (i.e. doesn't do
> anything hardware-dependent like enumerate PCI devices), but you should
> set it to the list of supported arches of the binary package if it
> contains hardware dependencies.
It could create such broken packages, but with the current state of
things, that is a better solution. We have some binary packages that are
arch any, but require a lib or compiler that cannot be compiled on all
archs because it isn't ported yet. The package itself is still arch all or
arch any, regardless of the state of the things it depends on.
True, if a script does something like "list SBUS devices on a sparc", then
that narrows the scripts scope to an arch. But if its like "yet another
GUI calculator, but built in pascal", it is arch any, even though gpc is
not built on all archs.
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: