Re: Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>]

On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Chris Davis 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)"

There isn't any really big benifit to doing that, because the above is the
same as this:

 Depends: Foo (>= 42 i386), Foo (>= 44 alpha)

I don't think we need to introduce another comma either..

Jason