Re: i386-only packages: porting bugs "wishlist"?
hmh@debian.org (Henrique M Holschuh) writes:
> --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001, Camm Maguire wrote:
> > Greetings! If an upstream package knowingly depends on
> > architecture-specific assembler code and kernel features and has not
> > been ported by upstream for non-x86 architectures, nor is intended to
> > be ported by upstream in the foreseeable future, can't bugs along the
> > lines of "doesn't build on arch ..." be downgraded from serious to
> > wishlist? gcl is the package in question -- maxima depends on it, it
>
> Only if you correctly stated for which archs the package should be built in
> its control file AFAIK.
Correct.
If a package can only built on one or some architectures, the Architecture:
line in the control file must be set appropriately. If it says 'any', that
is a release-critical bug. Porters file most "can't build from source" buts
at priority Serious for this reason.
As the package maintainer, it's fine for you to update the Architectures line
and close such bugs. If you think it could be ported and would be good to
do so, you could at your discretion fix the Architectures line and change the
severity of the bug to wishlist instead of closing it, but I don't personally
see the point... it clutters the BTS.
> Also, any packages that depend on this package
> should probably have the archs they are to be built for restricted in their
> control files.
Nope. Only the package that actually has the architecture-specific code
should indicate that. Any packages that depend on that package to build but
which are otherwise will build anywhere should have "Architecture: any" along
with an appropriate, explicitly-specified Build-Depends: line in the control
file for the architecture-specific package(s) they depend on. Porters
understand not to try and build things for which the build dependencies are
not met.
Bdale
Reply to: