On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:42:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 02 Dec 2007, Robert Millan wrote: > > Please could you move dpkg-architecture from dpkg-dev to dpkg ? It seems > > that > > because of this, it turns out that having the xorg meta-package installed > > requires dpkg-dev and hence binutils (because of type-handling). > > dpkg-architecture is perl and the goal is rather to get rid of perl in > dpkg than the contrary. So my first vote is against this change.
Note that it's trivial to re-write in bash, though. > Why does xorg need dpkg-architecture ? Because of type-handling. Maybe we should change that instead... X11 maintainers, how would you feel about making 'xorg' a binary-arch package so that it can use [] arch specifiers? -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
