Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
>> Do we care about any distinction between optional and extra any longer? > I would say no we don't and suggest these steps: > Remove it from policy: > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities > Get dak to override all extra packages to optional. > Drop extra handling from debcheck. Agreed. > I think this illustrates a couple of minor deficiencies wrt Debian and > arch-independent packages. There isn't any way to have depends that > should be only for certain arches. Yes, which is because of the deeper problem that architecture restrictions in dependency fields are a preprocessor feature instead of a feature of the dependency system. So you can use architecture-specific dependencies, but only for architecture-specific packages. (Hm. I see that isn't documented in Policy at all -- I do have this right, don't I?) Elevating architecture-specific dependencies to a first-class part of the syntax seems like a good long-term improvement to me, although of course everything that parses dependency fields will need to be updated, which is daunting. > There isn't any way to restrict which arches list arch-independent > packages in their package lists. That would be very nice. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r40omgei....@windlord.stanford.edu
