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

[Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>]

Marcus Brinkmann 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.

What happens if you want an architecture specifier but not a version
specifier?

I think something like
   package (>= 42) [i386]
would be better.  This cleanly separates two different things, and it allows
more flexibility in the architecture specifier.  We may want something
like [i386 m68k sparc] (for example, and altgcc dependency), and perhaps
even [!hurd-i386], and it will still look good.

Richard Braakman