Johannes Schauer wrote:
and subscribed to it.
> > Doesn't "Architecture: all" imply "Multi-arch: foreign" ?
> No. Multi-arch:foreign means that a package of architecture foo is able to
> satisfy the dependencies of a package with architecture bar.
> imagine an Architecture:all package doing this:
> gcc "$@"
> Certainly, what this architecture independent shell script does is
> architecture dependent and thus the package containing it cannot be
> marked as Multi-Arch:foreign.
How can this script be "Architecture:all" if it does not work as expected
on some architectures ?
"all, which indicates an architecture-independent package."
So is there a difference between "being architecture independent" and
"acting architecture independent" ?
(Hopefully i will never have to decide which of both is in effect.)
Have a nice day :)