Hello Lumin,
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Lumin wrote:
> Compared to "same"/"foreign", the idea above provides a more
> expressive and self-doc'd Multi-Arch field.
>
> Your opinion?
I think that you have no idea of the amount of energy and discussion that
went into Multi-Arch. While your proposed wording is nice, it fails to
achieve the core goal of the field: express what kind of
(cross-architectures) dependencies are allowed on the given package.
And if you manage to remember that, it will be much easier to remember
the meaning of the value:
"same" -> only packages of the same architecture can depend on it
"foreign" -> packages of different ("foreign") architectures can depend on it
"allowed" -> a bit of both depending on the annotation of the dependency
(":any" -> allowed, otherwise not allowed).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
