On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 11:31:16AM -0400, Chris Davis wrote: > > > * 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)"
In such a case, I would go for either of these: foo (>=42, i386), foo (>=44, alpha) or even foo (>=44, i386, alpha) It is not necessary to complicate the syntax for this type of dependency. That foo is mentioned twice doesn't harm, IMHO. It makes it obvious that here is a problem to be fixed. This is probably one of those "bad" uses of arch specific source dependencies that Antti-Juhani was concerned about, and should be avoided. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
