On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > > The right solution is of course to be able to specify patterns like > > "*-linux-gnu". > > Yes, but this is a long-term solution.
Well, 4+ years, a dpkg rewrite, and dozens of arches make up a long term for me. > > so you will have a hard time convincing package > > maintainers or Debian policy that this change is desired. > > I'd have a harder time sending a report for each package every time a new > non-linux arch is added. Yes, you. But others would have a harder time if they wanted to add another GNU/Linux arch. Shifting around work from one person to another is not exactly a solution to the problem. > > And given that > > both solutions are "wrong", and the first one is the less ugly _today_, I > > don't see any reason for change. > > The reason is that (as usual) we're coping with a work that doesn't belong > to us. If a package depends on a linux-specific one, this is the package > maintainer (or the Linux-based ports maintainers) who should take care about > it. Well, that argument has some merit. If you want to change things, I guess the best, maybe the only way, is to get existence practice changed on a case-by-case basis and then get it solidified by a Debian policy change. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
