Hi Josch, On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:41:24AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-07 17:35:06) > > It just appeared to me that we probably do not have a syntax to pinpoint a > > package built for a specific architecture. "We" meaning in this case dpkg, > > apt, and dose (if I am not mistaken). > > No. We do have it.
[...] > Dpkg and apt allow this just fine. Try to do: > > apt-get install --simulate gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabihf > > And you will end up with a number of armhf packages on your system (you have > to > enable armhf beforehand of course). Interesting, I did not know this. Is this documented somewhere? I just looked through apt-get(1) man page and couldn't find it there. > > Once we can teach dose to accept the pseudo packages as described above we > > could run it with all the Packages files for all archiectures, which makes > > roughly 500.000 packages. > > This might fail not only because of M-A:same conflicts but also because some > packages just conflict with each other through a normal Conflicts:. You > probably need a clever way to partition dependencies. In my understanding these are precisely the cases which we want to find: packages which are supposed to be co-installable for different archiectures (since they are M-A=same), but which are not for some reason. I'll answer about the encoding in dose on the dose-devel list. Cheers -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109145815.gd10...@seneca.home.org
