Package: dpkg Version: 1.16.1.2ubuntu7.5 The Debian Policy Manual describes at 7.1 the syntax of relationship fields. To test the syntax after running into trouble writing my own packages, I created a directory 'test' containing a sample file (usr/src/test/TODO) and the usual DEBIAN/conffile (size zero) and the following DEBIAN/control:
Package: test Version: 2.3.0 Architecture: amd64 Maintainer: Daniel U. Thibault <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Installed-Size: 19 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.1), exim | mail-transport-agent Section: utils Priority: extra Homepage: http://git.lttng.org/?p=lttng-modules.git;a=summary Description: Test of dpkg This package does nothing. The Depends line was then varied before running 'dpkg --build ./test' in each case. The Depends line shown above packages just fine. However: Depends: foo [solaris-amd64], bar [!solaris-amd64] Yields the error `Depends' field, syntax error after reference to package 'foo'. Likewise for: Depends: foo (>= 1.0) [solaris-amd64] Depends: foo [!solaris-amd64], bar [solaris-amd64] Depends: foo [!solaris-amd64] | bar [!hurd-amd64] Note how closely the examples mimic those given in the Debian Policy Manual. Inspection of the f_dependency() function of lib/dpkg/fields.c leads me to believe dpkg will always reject any attempt to use architecture restriction as defined by the Debian Policy Manual! On the other hand, this behaviour does match that described by man deb-control. I am using Ubuntu 12.04.4 LTS precise, kernel 3.9.3.
