On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Chris Davis wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > > If this is not acceptable, the amendment > > > should be marked as rejected. > > > > > * 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. > > > would "(>=42:i386)" not be better so we could then also do something like > "(>=42:i386, >=44:alpha)"
There isn't any really big benifit to doing that, because the above is the same as this: Depends: Foo (>= 42 i386), Foo (>= 44 alpha) I don't think we need to introduce another comma either.. Jason
