On Wed, 05 Dec 2007, Julien Cristau wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, that's correct. > > > 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. > > > My preference would be for dpkg to allow 'Depends: foo [arch]' in arch:all > packages, but failing that, I agree.
Right now the support for the "[arch]" syntax is only in the perl code and not at all in the C part that concerns dpkg. Adding it there is a non-trivial effort and would probably also require changes in apt-based software. Aurélien, what do you think of the idea of change concerning type-handling ? 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]
