In article <46AE5889.9060103@pkgsrc.org> Johnny wrote:
: > We probably want to add a way to differentiate the two. Perhaps
: > include the EMUL_PLATFORM in the PKGNAME?

: This is a variant of the problem of trying to depend on a package with a 
: particular set of PKG_OPTIONS (I might have implemented EMUL_PLATFORM as 
: a package option, and in practice, it acts just like one).

: I think that solving the problem on the "install-from-pkgsrc" side is 
: fairly easy, but the same problem on the binary package side is somewhat 
: harder.  If we require a binary package to be completely standalone, 
: then we must be able to (quickly) determine what PKG_OPTIONS it was 
: built with, without needing to unpack the binary package.

  Query the pkg_summary?  I think in the long run encoding all
information we need to know about a binary package in the file name
will be too limiting.  I think the file name should uniquely identify
a package (variant), but need not provide all the information about
it.  (See the options tags proposal in my recent mail.)

					yours,
					dillo