Hi, Quoting Simon McVittie (2026-04-04 12:08:54) > dpkg documents architecture qualifiers in its man pages, which could be > used as a basis for this. > > deb-control(5) documents this for binary packages' dependency fields > (Depends, Recommends etc.): a "real Debian architecture name" can appear > after the colon, and as a special case, foo:any is also allowed. I'm not > 100% sure what "real" means in this context: probably the intention is > that a specific, concrete architecture name like foo:i386 is considered > to be "real", but a wildcard like foo:any-i386 or foo:linux-any is not? > > deb-src-control(5) documents the same architecture qualifiers for > Build-Depends etc. as for Depends, plus a second special case, > foo:native, which is described as "will match the current build > architecture if the package is not marked with Multi-Arch: foreign." I'm > not 100% sure whether this means that a B-D on something like > bash:native will be treated as an unsatisfiable build-dependency in the > case where bash *is* M-A: foreign (as in fact it is), or whether a B-D > on bash:native is merely equivalent to a B-D on bash in that case. I > would hope it's the latter - that seems like it would have more useful > semantics, especially when packages were not initially marked > Multi-Arch: foreign but could/should have been.
another source of existing documentation of this can be found here: https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/dpkg/dpkg.git/tree/doc/spec/multiarch.txt?h=pu/doc-multiarch-spec Especially the tables have been useful references for me in the past and they essentially mirror the original Ubuntu documentation of this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchCross#Build_Dependencies Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
