Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > * If so, what syntax should we use? > > - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax, > > as it's the least intrusive choice. > > allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like > "(>= 42, i386)" that's a bit easier on the mind.
What happens if you want an architecture specifier but not a version specifier? I think something like package (>= 42) [i386] would be better. This cleanly separates two different things, and it allows more flexibility in the architecture specifier. We may want something like [i386 m68k sparc] (for example, and altgcc dependency), and perhaps even [!hurd-i386], and it will still look good. Richard Braakman
