Re: Architecture: all (was Re: dh $@ --with cli --with python2 --parallel)
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Chow Loong Jin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 08/09/2011 20:42, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> I was told that my arch should not be set to all since mono is not
>> available on -say- hppa. Policy requires it should be 'any' (*) ?
>> (*) http://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/cli-policy/ch-packaging.html#s-architecture
> According to your link, -cil packages with 100% managed code (i.e. only
> .dll/.exe files to be used with mono), architecture should be set to all. And
> that is the case for libgpod-cil.
> However, it's not the same for your package, as you have some .so files inside
> your -cil packages, so you'd have two options:
> - Split out the glue libraries in the -cil package (.so files?) into a
> separate, Arch: any package.
That will not change anything AFAIK. my -cil package will Requires: a
package that will not be available on mips, mipsel, sparc64 ...
> - Keep your architecture narrowing as is, and forget what I mentioned about
> shifting the mono-specific build-deps to Build-Depends-Indep. dh_listpackages
> should list -cil packages for the relevant architectures, so the example
> debian/rules snippet I previously posted should work.
Basically my question was that any new arch added to ports that does
not support mono (*) needs to be explicitely added in my control file.
I wanted to have something more ''system-based inspection" to
determine whether or not to build the -cil package.
(*) looking at ports today I realised the complete gdcm package is not
available on sparc64 since only the sub-package -cil makes it require