On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, seth vidal wrote: > > It's on my todo-list, haven't done anything about it yet. Mind you I don't > > think the exactarch-behavior is necessarily a win-win situation either > > because it breaks when a package's arch is downgraded on purpose like we > > all saw with this particular change. Having it as an option is/would be > > nice though. > > I agree, Matthias had a pretty good suggestion. > > have a list of packages that should not change arch, if at all possible, > and only treat those as special: > > glibc kernel kernel-smp etc etc. Yep, the extremely rare cases of those packages downgrading arch can be dealt as .. well, special cases. It was suggested just yesterday on apt-rpm list that support for pinning packages by architecture should be added, which would do the above, more or less. Considering the mess that pinning is, a list like ExactArchPkgs = ["glibc", "kernel" ... ] might be less intimidating :) - Panu -
