On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:35:01AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > > > 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.
Right, I agree. > I haven't heard how not-supported-on works and can't quickly find > references. It's a package that doesn't exist. `B-D: not-supported-on [armel armhf]` will get you BD-Uninstallable on armel and armhf: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=socket-wrapper -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
