On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:27:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Section 7.1 of the policy includes a description of > architecture-specific dependencies, correctly adding the following > constraint: > > > It is not permitted for some names to be prepended with exclamation > > marks while others aren't. > > the reason being that the semantics of the architecture list is either > exclusive (if all archs are negated with '!') or inclusive (if all archs > are not negated). > > A direct consequence is that an empty list of architecture > (e.g. 'foo []') is meaningless as it cannot be determined whether it was > meant to be inclusive or exclusive. > > Still, the policy does not say explicitly that the list should be > non-empty, and in fact there are cases of (buggy) packages specifying > empty architecture lists in arch-specific dependencies. > > Can you please add "non empty" just before mentioning the architecture > list? Patch implementing that is attached. Seconded in principle (modulo the tab damage in your patch), although I'm interested in the following points: * What packages violate this constraint right now? * What happens to packages that violate this constraint right now? -- Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature