Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It's probably worth noting here that there's no specification for >> either in Policy, so they really are unknown in that sense. That won't >> stop me from adding them to Lintian's list, since we added >> Dm-Upload-Allowed and the Vcs-* fields without being in Policy, but we >> really should document them in Policy as well. > > Note that Breaks suffers from the same problem. Breaks will be in the next Policy release. > I should also say that those should also be fixed IMO: > I: dpkg source: non-standard-arch-in-source-relation kfreebsd-i386 > [build-depends: libselinux1-dev (>= 1.28-4) [!hurd-i386 !kfreebsd-i386 > !kfreebsd-amd64]] > I: dpkg source: non-standard-arch-in-source-relation kfreebsd-amd64 > [build-depends: libselinux1-dev (>= 1.28-4) [!hurd-i386 !kfreebsd-i386 > !kfreebsd-amd64]] > > kfreebsd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, armel are unofficial architectures which are > mentioned in many cases. That's the definition of non-standard architecture. Maybe the tag should go away completely, but assuming that one buys the reason for having the tag at all, it is correct in this case. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
