Re: Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> > should be marked as rejected.
>
> > * If so, what syntax should we use?
> > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> > as it's the least intrusive choice.
>
> allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like
> "(>= 42, i386)" that's a bit easier on the mind.
>
would "(>=42:i386)" not be better so we could then also do something like
"(>=42:i386, >=44:alpha)"
cd
===================================================================
| davis@lrtw.org | Chris Davis |
| davis@ecf.utoronto.ca | Computer Engineering OTO++ |
| cd@debian.org | University of Toronto |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Developer, Linux port to the Sparc/Sun4 Architecture. |
| Powered by Debian GNU/Linux. www.debian.org www.linux.org |
|=================================================================|
| PGP Key #B823A045 available from pgp keyservers |
| fingerprint = 22 88 13 91 6B A7 34 14 76 56 0C 35 D8 E5 06 20 |
|=================================================================|
| "Together we will rule the world, |
| all by myself" |
===================================================================
Reply to: