Frans Pop <email@example.com> (09/02/2010): > Hi Cyril, Hello, > So you're subscribed to d-boot now? :-) yes, it's probably going to make things easier. :) > On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> (09/02/2010): > > > This format is not (yet) allowed by policy: rootskel-gtk > > > (>=0.05) [!s390] (except for build dependencies) > > > > AFAICT, it just works, and not only for Build-Depends. It can't be > > used for an arch: all package, though, since it gets substituted > > at build time, so it probably won't do what you would want. > > I know that it is going to be allowed in the future and because of > that I don't doubt that it (mostly?) works. But AFAIK *currently* > it's not allowed by policy , except for build deps. And thus it > should not yet be used in uploads. Oops, indeed. Looks like I forgot about that particular point, thanks for pointing this out. It looks like I've been taking it granted for quite some time. > That other packages violate policy is not really a convincing > argument. (Sure, it just wanted to point an existing example out.) > A reference to an (official) statement from FTP-masters would be. I'd rather have -policy@ folks share their mind about it. I guess updating the Policy to allow limiting non-build-time relationships (Depends, Recommends, …) to some architectures would be nice to have. I'm not sure whether warning people about the substitution which happens at build time would have its place in the Policy since that could be considered an (dpkg-dev) implementation detail (but that can cause some headaches). Mraw, KiBi.  Meaning an Architecture: all package with Depends: foo [bar] will have foo, or won't have foo, depending on which architecture it will be built upon, rather than the conditional Depends stored in the resulting binary.
Description: Digital signature