Re: Bug#454057: please move dpkg-architecture
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:42:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Dec 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Please could you move dpkg-architecture from dpkg-dev to dpkg ? It seems that
> > > because of this, it turns out that having the xorg meta-package installed
> > > requires dpkg-dev and hence binutils (because of type-handling).
> >
> > dpkg-architecture is perl and the goal is rather to get rid of perl in
> > dpkg than the contrary. So my first vote is against this change.
>
> Note that it's trivial to re-write in bash, though.
>
> > Why does xorg need dpkg-architecture ?
>
> Because of type-handling. Maybe we should change that instead...
>
> X11 maintainers, how would you feel about making 'xorg' a binary-arch
> package so that it can use [] arch specifiers?
Or we can change type-handling too. Apparently xorg only uses the fact
that type-handling provides not+sparc but it doesn't use the type-handling
program which is the real user of dpkg-architecture. Is that right?
Maybe type-handling could be split with an empty package whose sole
purpose is to "Provides" some virtual packages while type-handling
stays the program with its dpkg-dev dependency.
I think this solution would be my first preference.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: