some ideas for smart

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

> Smart 1.2 doesn't really "know" about package arch (just as @).
>
> Maybe a future version should have an explicit "arch" field
> in the API, since there's some things that seem to need it ?

As you point out, different backends have different needs, so it's not
clear to me (yet!) that there's a real benefit in separating out the
architecture from the version in Smart.  With the current scheme,
we've been able to address the needs of all the major backends so far,
including the ones related to architecture dependency.  If we have to
introduce a specific field, I'd like to at least hear what's the
problem we're solving that the current approach doesn't solve, and the
plan for supporting the new architecture field in the several cases we
now use the unified "version" field.

-- 
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net