Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> writes:
> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:46 +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> I am still wondering why we don't have just empty some pseudo-
> packages that are available only on specific architectures
>> (or groups of them, like linux, or little endian, or 64 bit or so).
>
> To solve which problem?
For example, the problem that a certain package is working properly only
on big endian systems. Or on Linux.
Currently, there is (as discussed here) no way to tell that an arch:all
package is not working on a 32-bit system. And for architecture
dependent builds, one needs to specify every single architecture where
it is supposed to build. How do you currently otherwise would specify
"all little endian systems" as build dependency?
> Packages being installable don't mean that they can do anything useful
> as they might, for example, require special hardware. We don't have a
> way to express "requires device ${X}" on a package level.
Special hardware is another topic, which is surely not solved here (and
not solvable at all in general, since hardware today may be
hot-pluggable, and the hardware configuration at install time does not
need to be the configuration at run time).
However, the proposal to have architecture (group) specific empty
packages would already solve some of the problems if this is limited to
architecture specification.
Best regards
Ole
