Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 07:57:38PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> 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?
What's exactly wrong with "(i386)" or "(i386 alpha)" and so on?
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: