On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:46:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:46:05PM +0200]: > > As per policy the empty architecture list has no defined semantics, I > > guess that the only possible behaviours out there are the following: > > > > 1) require at least one entry (as did by python-debian) > > > > 2) assume a default polarity, this in turn would lead to one of the > > possible two semantics: > > > > a) (polarity positive) hence empty arch list means "no architecture", > > i.e. useless dependency > > > > b) (polarity negative) hence empty arch list means "no excluded > > architecture", i.e. always present dependency > > > > We can start betting on this possibilities :-) > > Umh... And I think I'd rather go with the negative polarity. This > means that [] is a no-op. Positive polarity just kills all the > dependency information for that dependency... And I doubt it is ever > desirable!
I don't know. It seems to me that the most likely reason for this is a substitution gone wrong, for example a debian/control.in file that looks like either: Build-Depends: foo [EMAIL PROTECTED]@] or: Build-Depends: foo [EMAIL PROTECTED]@] While I agree the latter is quite plausible, I can also easily imagine the former: for example, you remove the last of the lines that looks like "FOO_ARCHES += i386" from debian/rules and forget that it's now empty. I don't think tools can reasonably guess this, and I'd prefer it if they simply rejected it up-front rather than trying to guess at a useful meaning for something that's clearly a mistake. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
