Hi Bastian: > > Something like this? > > > > | Provides: > > | linux-libc-dev-supports (= amd64-0), > > | linux-libc-dev-supports (= arm64-0), > > | linux-libc-dev-supports-multiarch (= aarch64-linux-gnu-0), > > | linux-libc-dev-supports-multiarch (= x86-64-linux-gnu-0), > > Using Provides is the natural approach indeed. Encoding the architecture > into the version may technically work, but it feels really strange. > Earlier, I proposed encoding it into the provided package name like > linux-libc-dev-arm64-cross, but we all know how that went and I would > not have proposed it if I had seen how it broke other pieces. Still if > we were to just drop the "-cross" suffix and go for a very similar > version. > > Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64, linux-libc-dev-arm64, ...
We have two proposed provides schemes here, can we select one and add it? > As stated elsewhere, I still don't understand what we gained by > switching from Arch:any to Arch:all, but maybe I don't have to. A > solution that adds any of these Provides is what I'd call good enough in > practical terms for the purpose of bootstrapping. It would be helpful if this question could be answered. I think Matthias was asking the same question in #1081826. -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
