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" | ===================================================================