Re: Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 11:31:16AM -0400, Chris Davis wrote:
> > > * 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)"
In such a case, I would go for either of these:
foo (>=42, i386), foo (>=44, alpha)
or even
foo (>=44, i386, alpha)
It is not necessary to complicate the syntax for this type of dependency.
That foo is mentioned twice doesn't harm, IMHO. It makes it obvious that
here is a problem to be fixed. This is probably one of those "bad" uses of
arch specific source dependencies that Antti-Juhani was concerned about, and
should be avoided.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: