Please remove the following email address: e.little...@gmail.com
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 5:57 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
>
> > I didn't find a previous discussion on this: it would be useful to
> > support negated architecture specifications in the debian/control
> >
Adam Borowski writes:
> Agreed, but it might be good to say "it would be good to have this", and
> send a bug/mail to the relevant teams, asking if there are objections
> before anyone spends work to implement this.
> I for one have currently no less than three related ideas:
> * this
> *
On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 02:53:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > Architecture: !s390 !s390x
> > Architecture: !hppa !hurd-any !kfreebsd-any
> > Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any !hppa !m68k-any
> > which would be understood as [ (linux-any or kfreebsd-any) and not
Samuel Thibault writes:
> I didn't find a previous discussion on this: it would be useful to
> support negated architecture specifications in the debian/control
> Architecture field, so that we can e.g. write:
> Architecture: !s390 !s390x
> (for xorg stuff)
> Architecture: !hppa !hurd-any
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.2
Severity: normal
Hello,
I didn't find a previous discussion on this: it would be useful to
support negated architecture specifications in the debian/control
Architecture field, so that we can e.g. write:
Architecture: !s390 !s390x
(for xorg stuff)
5 matches
Mail list logo
