Hi Niels, Am Montag, den 16.01.2012, 15:50 +0100 schrieb Niels Thykier: > A minimal checking of the M-A field is probably in order and should be > trivial to do as well. That being said, do we have any general idea of > how to handle this? > > Personally I smell two rather non-trivial issues. The first is that in > order to validate a "foo/i386 depends on bar:amd64" relation, we will > most likely have to give up the "architectures can be checked in > isolation" approach we are doing now. Particularly, "RDEPENDS" (and > "RCONFLICTS"?) can suddenly refer a foreign architecture.
SAT-Britney does not have this approach and always checks all arches in common. If you add some test cases to the test suite, I can probably quickly make SAT-Britney handle them, so you have some real code to discuss the desired semantics and investigate possible problems, before setting out to implement it for real in britney2. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
