Your message dated Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:48:00 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#464609: dpkg: Please support restricting package relationships to kernels has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---Package: dpkg Severity: wishlist It would be convenient if dpkg supports restricting package relationships based on kernels as it does with architectures. For example a {Build-Depends,Depends} can go something like libinotifytools0-dev [linux] or libinotifytools0-dev [!kfreebsd, !hurd, ...] -- Regards, Andres
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Hi, On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 18:26:45 -0500, Andres Mejia wrote: > Package: dpkg > Severity: wishlist > > It would be convenient if dpkg supports restricting package relationships > based on kernels as it does with architectures. > > For example a {Build-Depends,Depends} can go something like > > libinotifytools0-dev [linux] > > or > > libinotifytools0-dev [!kfreebsd, !hurd, ...] dpkg-dev has supported extended architecture wildcards since 1.13.12 or so, the syntax is a bit different though, linux-any, or any-i386 are some examples. Check the dpkg-architecture man page for more details. Also take into account that i386, amd64 and the rest imply a linux kernel, and they are not generic cpu wildcards. The fact that this cannot be used in Debian is due to sbuild not supporting it. regards, guillem
--- End Message ---
