On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:41:39PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote:
>
> as silly as it might sound, I tried to install the arch:all
> console-setup-freebsd on my amd64 (aka linux-amd64) and it is not installable
> because of "unsatisfiable dependencies". This is likely to forbid the entry
> of this package to testing (without manual handling from the Release Team).
I noticed that there are packages (for example pm-utils) whose
architecture is 'all' and nonetheless they are not installable on
kFreeBSD because of unsatisfiable dependencies. Does this mean the
architectures are not equal in rights - an 'all' package is allowed to
be uninsallable on kFreeBSD but not on Linux?
> Hence I would suggest to change the Architecture field of
> console-setup-freebsd to "kfreebsd-any" (and to linux-any for c-s-linux,
> obviously).
This would require an unnecessary recompilation of the package for all
architectures, something I'd like to avoid. On a slow machinke (like
those used by build daemons on some architectures) the compilation of
console-setup could take hours.
If an 'all' package is not allowed to depend on kFreeBSD-only package,
then I'd rather lower the dependencies of console-setup-{linux,freebsd}
from strong Depends to merely recommends. There are enough checks in
the scripts of console-setup to make sure it will work (with reduced
functionality, of course), if some of its dependencies are not
satisfied. In addition to this, it is possible to apply the
distributive law of the propositional calculus and use the following in
console-setup and console-setup-mini:
Depends:
kbd | console-tools | console-setup-freebsd,
console-setup-linux | console-setup-freebsd,
console-setup-linux | vidcontrol,
console-setup-linux | kbdcontrol,
kbd | console-tools | vidcontrol,
kbd | console-tools | kbdcontrol
Hopefully, the great APT will not get too much confused by this. :)
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
