Hi Guillem, Quoting Guillem Jover (2013-06-02 16:45:04) > autoconf is arch:all, so I don't see any reason why it should not be able to > satisfy the Build-Depends.
In practice, autoconf does indeed satisfy this Build-Depends of bash and in general should also be marked M-A:foreign. Another bug about that has to be filed for that. > The reason this does not apply to Depends, is to try to avoid switching > architectures in dependency chains, as in «pkg-a:arch-a → pkg-b:all → > pkg-c:arch-c». Yes, but I can't find this different treatment of Depends and Build-Depends in the multiarch spec. > But arguably this might not have been a very good idea after all, given that > I think that kind of dependency chain is IMO legitimate for arch:all > packages, OTOH one reason I didn't have much of a problem with that is > because we can always relax that restriction at any later point (and we > probably should). The question whether arch:all packages should implicitly be marked m-a:foreign came up a number of times so far. For example bug#666772 for apt. Right now, dpkg and apt behave differently so at least one has to be wrong. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
