architecture: all but ... (please add armel to architecture list)
- To: Martin Guy <martinwguy@yahoo.it>, 461088@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
- Subject: architecture: all but ... (please add armel to architecture list)
- From: Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:35:29 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20080118163529.GA27961@osamu.debian.net>
- In-reply-to: <56d259a00801160626t5e47cae1o6a8ece622a23500b@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <56d259a00801100454j2051d0b7y66dc5481bfb8d14f@mail.gmail.com> <56d259a00801160554u1a2dcdcbuc0bf8bbb0916fc71@mail.gmail.com> <56d259a00801160556k2d2d7c31ke9246867349727a6@mail.gmail.com> <56d259a00801160626t5e47cae1o6a8ece622a23500b@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
Dear porter, please enlighten me.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:26:20PM +0000, Martin Guy wrote:
> Package: gsynaptics
> Version: 0.9.7-3
> Severity: wishlist
> User: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: eabi
>
> Please add "armel" to the architecture list in debian/control (or make it "any")
>
> (A new ARM port should be going into lenny to replace the old one in lenny+1;
> see wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort)
Since S360 build failure caused me to chose explicit arch list, I
think I have to add eabi to fix this bug. I wish if we can do
Architecture: all but s360
These interesing special archtectures such as s360 shouldn't place extra
stress every time new architecture comes.
Did I miss some smart packaging method.
Osamu
Reply to: