Bug#5022: xinetd" does not build
"Boris D. Beletsky" <borik@isracom.co.il> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, llucius wrote:
>
>>Package: xinetd
>>Version: 2.1.7-1
>>
>>1) "debian/control" specifies "i386" for Architecture when it should be "any
>".
>
>what do u mean - "any" ?
>it's compiled for i386
The file "debian/control" has the field "Architecture". This states which
architectures the package can be compiled on - so if it can only be compiled
on an i386, it should say i386. Most packages will either be architecture-
independant - in which case the field should say "all" - or capable of being
compiled on any platform - in which case the field should say "any".
Using i386 just because the package will be compiled for i386 is _NOT_ the
way to do things. The architecture's purpose is to indicate which systems
the package _can_ be compiled on, not which system it _will_ be compiled
on by the maintainer.
>>2) "debian/rules" contains hardcoded (and unnecessary) architecture.
>
>hardcoded in "debian/rules" ?
>what do u mean?
There are parts of the debian/rules file which will only work on a
specific architecture, when they _should_ be designed to work independant
of CPU type.
>>3) "debian/rules" attempts to build package as arch independent when it is
>> actually dependent.
>
>that i cannot know since i have only i386 computers
>move all the compile process to binary-arch ?
>borik
The purpose of binary-indep is to produce a binary package that will work
on any architecture. (or rather, all such packages.) This means documents,
Perl/sh/python/... scripts, etc. binary-arch produces binary packages that
will only work on the architecture they were compiled for - which means
endian-dependant files, executables (such as bash), etc.
Does this clarify the situation for you?
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: