On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:25:26PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote: > Brian Russo schrieb: > [ new semantics of architecture control field ] > > What's become of the idea of using dependencies for > architectures? That scheme could even be extended to > subarchitectures or hardware features (ie Depends: i386, mmx, > libc6)
interesting idea, but i dont like the idea of doing it directly with Depends: theres already what, 4000 packages? 5000? i forget. you're working with an already limited namespace throwing more stuff in there is a Bad Idea (tm) .. on the other hand.. maybe doing it with a HW-Depends: isnt such a bad idea.. but, are there really that many programs out there that *need* mmx, etc? consider, a sound card is needed for playing audio files (under typical conditions). so should my package depend on a sound card? i dont think so.. how does my OS know i have a sound card? it checks for working /dev/dsp at install time or something? what if i dont have the module loaded.. havent recompiled the kernel..etc besides, you dont necessarily need a sound card to use a package which plays audio files.. per se. i dont think the packaging system should try to do everything.. -- Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
