Hi, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes: >> 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?)
It is documented in section 7.1: "This means that architecture restrictions must not be used in binary relationship fields for architecture-independent packages (Architecture: all)". Ansgar -- 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/87ppg846lv....@deep-thought.43-1.org
