Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.10.26+kbsd
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi!
>
> This is the continuation of bug #118910. Since you retitled it as
> "[ARCH] clean up archtable", I considered you'd prefer me to file a separate
> bug for this. Feel free to retitle/merge if you think otherwise.
>
> The changes are pretty straightforwarded, but they should be enough to fix
> most of the concerns that porters had with the limitations of dpkg
> architecture
> handling during the last few years.
>
> Patch available at http://people.debian.org/~rmh/patches/dpkg.diff. Quoting
> the patch header:
>
> With this patch, dpkg understands the following syntax for debian/control
> (while maintaining full backwards compatibility). Some examples:
>
> Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386]
What does Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386, mips] mean? All i386 cpus
and linux-mips? All i386 cpus and all mips cpus?
What about [cpu: i386, system: linux]? Is that linux-i386 or any i386
cpu or any linux system?
> ..where "bin86" is required only on _cpu_ i386 with any kernel (unlike
> [i386]
> which silently implies linux).
>
> Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.4 [system: linux]
>
> ..where "kernel-headers-2.4" is required only on linux-gnu systems, on any
> cpu.
>
> Analogously, the "Architecture" field is split. Some examples:
>
> Package: grub
> Cpu: i386
> System: any
>
> Package: modutils
> Cpu: any
> System: linux
Beware that unless you get this into sarge it can't be used before
etch is released, which means somewhere around 2008-2010.
Also is it allowed to say "Cpu: mips, mipsel" for mips/mipsel specific
but endian independent files, e.g. kernel docs and patch for
mips/mipsel.
Last but not least have you looked at DAK and figured out what needs
patching there to support this?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
