Re: Architecture Field
Nevermind the part about openbsd-s390 etc. I just saw some control
descriptions mentioning kfreebsd and hurd, which Debian has been
ported to. I suppose the other extensions are just for forward
compatibility.
Still, I'd like clarification with respect to whether prefixless
architectures can be assumed to be Linux.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Yu<jonathan.i.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Debian Policy 11.1 states:
> "11.1 Architecture specification strings
>
> If a program needs to specify an architecture specification string in
> some place, it should select one of the strings provided by
> dpkg-architecture -L. The strings are in the format os-arch, though
> the OS part is sometimes elided, as when the OS is Linux.[73]
>
> Note that we don't want to use arch-debian-linux to apply to the rule
> architecture-vendor-os since this would make our programs incompatible
> with other Linux distributions. We also don't use something like
> arch-unknown-linux, since the unknown does not look very good."
>
> For the purposes of Debian Control Files, I took that to mean:
> dpkg-architecture -L results that have no 'os' prefix should be
> considered 'linux'
>
> I'm a bit unclear here on whether things in an Architecture: field
> should be picked from the linux ones, or if they could be from any of
> them. Is it possible to have Architecture: openbsd-s390 in
> debian/control? I'm guessing there could be a case where APT is ported
> to other operating systems, though in practice so far all I have seen
> is architectures with no prefix "s390" which I take to mean
> "linux-s390"
>
> Is it safe to assume s390 == linux-s390, in all cases? I ask because
> the terminology sounds ambiguous -- the OS part is "sometimes" elided,
> as when the OS is Linux. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a
> missing OS part means the OS is assumed to be Linux.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonathan
>
Reply to: