On 02/27/2016 02:41 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > * B-D Uninstallable can be a huge list, where dozens of those only > wait for just one package - it makes sense to group/collapse them; > (this happens in the dose pages also) I have a question here: package A build-depends on libB. A has Arch: any or Arch: linux-any in debian/control. libB OTOH only has e.g. Arch: amd64 i386 mips in it's control file. If A is in principle portable (i.e. other than the fact that libB isn't ported to those archs yet, there's nothing intrinsic in A that shouldn't work on any architecture), what is the correct way of handling this? - keep everything as is: Disadvantage: listed as BD-Uninstallable on multiple architectures where libB isn't built Advantage: once libB is ported to a new architecture, the buildds will take care of everything (at worst a gb or binnmu is needed) - explicitly list the architectures of libB also in A Disadvantage: maintenance burden for maintainer (maintainer of A needs to explicitly track changes in libB to support ports) Disadvantage: requires source upload to build on new arch once libB is ported Advantage: no BD-Uninstallable status in buildds From the perspective of a porter: which one would you prefer and why? Regards, Christian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature