Re: Architecture restrictions and arch: all binary packages

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Hello folks,
>
> There was one suggestion in the bug log from Goswin von Brederlow:
>
> | 1. Build-Depend/Conflict on the architecture
> | 
> | Build-Depends: type-handling
> | Build-Conflicts: mips, mipsel, ia64
> | 
> | That way an attempt to build on an unsuported architecture will fail
> | with a Build-Conflict.
>
> but in addition to seeming like kind of a hack, I'm not sure that this
> will do anything other than produce a better error message.  I'd certainly
> like to produce a better error message, and will do that if all else fails
> (although I'm not sure this is the best mechanism to do so), but isn't
> there any way to tag the package so that the buildds won't even try?

It won't do anything to buildds as the official wanna-build is too
stupid anyway. That measure is only for the benefit of users building
the package manually.

For buildds there are 3 mechanisms in place:

1. no auto list of the buildd

Per buildd setting to avoid packages not suitable for a specific
buildd (e.g. needs more ram/disk than this buildd has).

2. not-for-us state

Wanna-build per arch setting flaging the package to do serious harm to
the buildd and not build it.

3. package-arch-specific

Global list of package to be excluded for each arch and the long term
solution for not-for-us

p-a-s is on cvs.debian.org and buildd admins should know about it. So
don't worry about it too much. If they wan't to not build openafs they
can fix it.

MfG
        Goswin