On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 02:18:41AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > If this is not acceptable, the amendment
> > should be marked as rejected.
> 
> >   * If so, what syntax should we use?
> >         - My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
> >       as it's the least intrusive choice.
> 
> allright. But allow a seperator between version number and arch, like 
> "(>= 42, i386)" that's a bit easier on the mind.
>         
would "(>=42:i386)" not be better so we could then also do something like
"(>=42:i386, >=44:alpha)"


cd

===================================================================
|    [EMAIL PROTECTED]     |               Chris Davis               |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |        Computer Engineering OTO++       |
|    [EMAIL PROTECTED]      |           University of Toronto         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Developer, Linux port to the Sparc/Sun4 Architecture.           | 
| Powered by Debian GNU/Linux.    www.debian.org   www.linux.org  |
|=================================================================|
| PGP Key #B823A045 available from pgp keyservers                 |
| fingerprint = 22 88 13 91 6B A7 34 14  76 56 0C 35 D8 E5 06 20  |
|=================================================================|
| "Together we will rule the world,                               |
|            all by myself"                                       |
===================================================================


Reply via email to