Hi, On 17-10-2024 07:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:48:21AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:Hello,I hadn't heard of these architecture-is-64-bit and not-supported-on metapackages(?). Would someone who knows how they are meant to work consider submitting a patch for Policy? Thanks.I think they, just like isa-support, are means to circumvent the Policy / work around its and dpkg's shortcomings and so I'm not sure if it makes sense to document them there, and if so, where exactly.
I don't agree that architecture-is-64-bit is in the same group of circumventing Policy. While isa-support prevents installation by failing during install (IIRC) and is a hack to prevent baseline violation during execution of binaries, architecture-is-64-bit is a *build* dependency and prevents building on architectures where the package isn't supported. This is very similar to the dpkg Architecture field, but then without the need to spell it out and future proof (but yes, a bit of a work around of dpkg shortcomings).
In my opinion (only with half my Release Team hat on) architecture-is-64-bit as a *build* dependency is fine, while I'm of the opinion that isa-support is basically wrong.
I haven't heard how not-supported-on works and can't quickly find references.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
