Hi! On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 15:20:02 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I finally found some time to write new proposed wording for the section in > Policy on handling architecture-restricted dependencies. Could you review > this change and be sure that I'm correctly describing the situation? I > added a new, fairly complicated example based on one of the ones that > Guillem explained for me. > > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -4188,6 +4188,22 @@ Build-Depends-Indep: texinfo > Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.10 [!hurd-i386], > hurd-dev [hurd-i386], gnumach-dev [hurd-i386] > </example> > + requires <tt>kernel-headers-2.2.0</tt> on all architectures > + other than hurd-i386 and requires <tt>hurd-dev</tt> and > + <tt>gnumach-dev</tt> only on hurd-i386. > + </p> > + > + <p> > + If the architecture-restricted dependency is part of a set of > + alternatives using <tt>|</tt>, that branch of the alternative is > + ignored completely on architectures that do not match the > + restriction. For example: > + <example compact="compact"> > +Build-Depends: foo [!i386] | bar [!amd64] > + </example> > + is equivalent to <tt>bar</tt> on the i386 architecture, to > + <tt>foo</tt> on the amd64 architecture, and to <tt>foo | > + bar</tt> on all other architectures. > </p> > > <p>
Looks fine. Seconded. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
