Hi! I think the rest is covered in my previous replies, otherwise I can tackle specific points I might have missed or that might be unclear.
On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 15:39:14 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting David Kalnischkies (2015-04-17 11:27:07) > > My personal opinion is (unsurprisingly perhaps) APT's interpretation as the > > point of M-A: foreign is satisfying dependencies of another architecture. If > > there really is a meaningful difference between architectures a > > reverse-dependency could observe, perhaps bar should be M-A: allowed > > instead… > > Yes, if bar:amd64 would not also really provide bar:i386, then it should not > be > M-A:foreign. Ah, I guess this might be where the different interpretations come from. The way I see it, a M-A:foreign has a defined architecture, which is relevant, because you might need to run it, and it does not really provide :any, it is just able to satisfy unqualified dependencies. When you explicitly provide another arch then *that* counts as actually providing that arch. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150418233835.gd15...@gaara.hadrons.org
