On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 01:07:01AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > 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. Well, since the whole reason we would need to declare a dpkg-dev:arch dependency is that dpkg-dev is *not* going to be a multiarch package, having such a dependency makes it impossible for (e.g.) build-essential:i386 and build-essential:amd64 to be co-installable, right? That seems unfortunate to me. Assuming no one comes up with a brilliant^Wcrazy plan to make dpkg-dev autoselect the default architecture based on something like the Linux personality, I would figure that the sensible thing here is to require anyone trying to build packages for a non-default arch to declare this arch using the -a option to dpkg-buildpackage. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
