On Thu, 2026-02-19 at 10:12:56 +0100, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > Control: tags -1 patch > > On 19/02/26 03:47, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > Could `--arch=foo` be modified to mean "strictly foo, without all"? > > > Alternatively could a new option like `--arch-strict=foo` be > > > introduced, if you believe that the old behavior should not change? > > > > I don't think changing the semantics for --arch would be correct, as > > this is how it has been documented, and how people have relied on this > > option working. Instead I've added a new --no-implicit-arch option, > > which removes the implicit addition of the arch-all packages, so then > > you can run twice with --arch=foo and then --arch=all for example.
> If I am allowed to bikeshed a bit, as a user I'd find > > --no-implicit-arch-all > > or > > --no-implicit-archs > > more explicit and easier to spot when looking for that kind of > change of semantics. (Inner dialogue: "no implicit arch? which arch > is implicit?".) I actually started with --no-arch-all, but then when I was testing that, it started to look very odd or even confusing, for example with: $ dpkg-scanpackages --no-arch-all --arch=all . And while --no-implicit-arch-all, at least makes clear it's about the arch being implicit, it also seemed very long (so less ergonomic). I'm not sure I see a difference with using the plural archs though. :) Thanks, Guillem
