On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 07:11:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Ralf Treinen ([email protected]) [100802 02:25]: > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 08:28:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Ralf Treinen ([email protected]) [100726 22:50]: > > > > We are currently working on the next generation of edos-debcheck and > > > > edos-builddebcheck (and some other related tools) which will be based > > > > on a new library (dose3). So this is the best moment to rethink command > > > > line usage and output formats. > > > > > > I'd like to specify an arch to use, and have both edos to ignore > > > packages of other arches, and satisfy the proper arch-specificy > > > depends (i.e. works with something like "Depends: a [linux-any], b > > > [i386 amd64]"). > > > > are you talking about edos-debcheck or edos-BUILDdebcheck here? > > build-debcheck (the next generation) has already that feature. For > > edos-debcheck, this could easily be achieved by filtering the > > packages file through grep-dctrl, since for binary packages > > there are no architecture constraints on the package relations > > (as oposed to source packages). But we can consider adding such > > an option to edos-debcheck too if you really need it. > > Looking at the recent discussions, I'm not sure how long that > continues to be the case for arch-all-packages.
OK, this is probably a good argument to implement an option that says "assume that we are on architecture xxx". Any pointers to that ongoing discussion you mention? Are you planning for arch=all a field like "installs-on: x, y, z", or are you also thinking of having architecture specifications on package relations (like for build-depends) ? -Ralf -- Ralf Treinen Laboratoire Preuves, Programmes et Systèmes Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~treinen/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
