Hi, quid...@poivron.org wrote (07 Jun 2012 12:53:34 GMT) : >> The whole thing is arch:all, but some shell functions require a Linux >> kernel shouldn't bilibop-common have a versioned dependency on Linux >> kernel >= 2.6.37 (needed by backing_file_from_loop), and be >> arch:linux-any instead?
> I don't know exactly how to do a versioned dependency on the kernel. We don't need a versioned dependency, but we need to depend on the *Linux* kernel. > Additionally, changing 'all' by 'linux-any' leads to the creation > of architecture dependent binaries (formally, by their names), but > with exactly the same contents: shell scripts, udev rules, manpages > and other plain text documents. Sure. It's a tiny bit sad, but this set of packages is *not* arch:all, given it does not work on kfreebsd-* architectures. > So, I'm not sure that it is the best way. Maybe, for bilibop-common, > Architecture: linux-any, and for the others, Architecture: all ? This would for sure avoid some stupid duplication, but it would nevertheless create a set of packages that are uninstallable on some architectures, without that fact being made clear to the users of those architectures. So, really, I think the only sane way is to move everything (that is or depends on bilibop-common) to arch:linux-any. > Do you think a NOTE in the extended description and/or in the README > could be sufficient ? It would be sufficient to address the "minimal Linux kernel version" requirement, but certainly not to address the "needs Linux" one. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85bokvb7ce....@boum.org
