On Mon, 03 Dec 2007, Robert Millan wrote: > 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?
Or we can change type-handling too. Apparently xorg only uses the fact that type-handling provides not+sparc but it doesn't use the type-handling program which is the real user of dpkg-architecture. Is that right? Maybe type-handling could be split with an empty package whose sole purpose is to "Provides" some virtual packages while type-handling stays the program with its dpkg-dev dependency. I think this solution would be my first preference. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
