Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:07:00AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Only the "dpkg:arch" is required and that can be done with "Provides:
>> dpkg-arch" again.
>
> Right. I wonder if even this should strictly be necessary, though, or if
> dpkg shouldn't be able to provide the needed features for build-essential in
> any architecture version...
The problem is that dpkg has the default architecture hardcoded in the
binary and that can't be changed without large side effects.
If we allow an amd64 dpkg to behave like an i386 dpkg then I bet
people will start messing things up and build i386 debs on amd64
systems and complain why they can't build amd64 debs.
Keeping the architecture hardcoded in dpkg and have the architecture
of the dpkg (dpkg-dev?) package decide what architecture to build for
seems a simple solution.
But that is just me. And I'm also to lazy to dig through dpkg source
to make it provide the same behaviour for any arch.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
