On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 at 20:22:17 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > "This means that architecture restrictions must not be used in binary > relationship fields for architecture-independent packages (Architecture: > all)."
This just forbids the following: Architecture: all Depends: hello [i386 amd64] Note that "binary relationship fields" means Depends, Recommends, Provides, etc., as opposed to Build-Depends, Build-Conflicts or Build-Depends-Indep. > I have a question about packages like antelope. Its dependency line > says: > > Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), cdbs, default-jdk, maven-repo-helper, > ant, docbook-xsl, xsltproc Strictly speaking, the packages that are needed for the build (only) should be moved to Build-Depends-Indep. Packages that are needed for clean, like debheper and cdbs, have to stay in Build-Depends in any case. > In theory an arch-all rebuild of this package should fail. dpkg-buildpackage -A (arch-independent-only) requires both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep, like a normal build; dpkg-buildpackage -B (arch-dependent-only, as used on buildds) requires only Build-Depends. In practice, dpkg-buildpackage -A is rarely used; maintainers build arch-independent packages, plus arch-dependent packages for their own architecture. Regards, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100822202355.ga25...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk