On 13 March 2012 18:18, Daniel Hartwig <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Packages from different architectures should definitely be displayed
>> as individual packages because:
>> ...
>
> That was my reasoning also. This is much easier to implement and
> practically already done.
Woohoo!
>> What if I care? What if I want to see, in a search result or a
>> filtered view, both native and neutral architecture packages and to be
>> able to tell them apart from each other? Treating the neutral ones as
>> if they were native ones should be a deault - like
>> ?architecture(prefer-native) is - not a constraint.
>
> Configuration item to always show the ':<arch>' bit. When enabled you
> will have both ':NATIVE' and ':all' displayed.
>
> Ideally, such an option will be implemented in APT and so also
> respected by apt-get and others.
Sure, I'll file a request against APT.
What exactly do we want? I'm not familiar with APT configurations.
On 13 March 2012 18:18, Daniel Hartwig <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Packages from different architectures should definitely be displayed
>> as individual packages because:
>> ...
>
> That was my reasoning also. This is much easier to implement and
> practically already done.
Woohoo!
>> What if I care? What if I want to see, in a search result or a prefer- native) is - not a constraint.
>> filtered view, both native and neutral architecture packages and to be
>> able to tell them apart from each other? Treating the neutral ones as
>> if they were native ones should be a deault - like
>> ?architecture(
>
> Configuration item to always show the ':<arch>' bit. When enabled you
> will have both ':NATIVE' and ':all' displayed.
>
> Ideally, such an option will be implemented in APT and so also
> respected by apt-get and others.
Sure, I'll file a request against APT.
What exactly do we want? I'm not familiar with APT configurations.