On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote: > Of course not. Those things do not define the architecture. > > If a package is exim4, it is always exim4 regardless of what compiler > and compiler options were used to build it -- it's dependencies do not > change, nor do pre-depends, conflicts, suggests or recommends. However > with hardware dependencies involved, I no longer know if I can install a > package by looking at the filename. > > If dpkg is not to support sub-architectures (like amd64, etc) then the > same package name, say coreutils_5.0-4_i386.deb, could potentially > contain different hardware dependencies. > > I believe the package name is misleading since this particular > coreutils_5.0-4_i386.deb may not be installed on i386 since it was built > with the intent of use on DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE=x86_64-linux. The filename > containing i386 seems counter intuitive. > > We can already see this in the kernel packages. The architecture is > i386 yet the file is named kernel-image-2.4.20-3-k7_i386.deb. I predict > that more packages will emerge containing the sub-architecture names in > the version tag of the package and the architecture set to the base > architecture.
don't confuse debian policy, and dpkg development. Dpkg doesn't care about package names. We do care about dependency resolvment.
