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

To: 41232@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:29:53 +0100 (BST)
Message-id: <[🔎] 14265.47153.515840.956887@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
Reply-to: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>, 41232@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] E11DAiw-0001i9-00@night>
References: <[🔎] 19990807041213.E15897@ulysses.ulysses.de> <[🔎] E11DAiw-0001i9-00@night>

Richard Braakman writes ("Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies  on binary packages"):
...
> 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.

I agree.  Overloading the () metacharacters is a bad idea.

Ian.

Reply to:

References:
- Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
  - From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
- Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
  - From: Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>

Prev by Date: Re: shlibs file changes proposal
Next by Date: Bug#42052: PROPOSAL] /var/mail and /var/spool/mail
Previous by thread: Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
Next by thread: Bug#41232: AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread