Re: Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information.
- To: Ivan Baldo <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Cc: Debian developers list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information.
- From: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:00:15 +0000
- Message-id: <19991203090015.B23112@polya>
- In-reply-to: <38474B86.3A657719@adinet.com.uy>; from email@example.com on Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 01:48:06AM -0300
- References: <38474B86.3A657719@adinet.com.uy>
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 01:48:06AM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> Package: packaging-manual
> Version: 126.96.36.199
> Severity: wishlist
> The packaging-manual doesn't say what is the criteria used to select the
> architectures for a binary package.
> For example: I am (the no official yet) maintainer of the rhtvision
> and setedit text editor.
> The rhtvision library was tested on i386 and alpha, then I set the
> architecture field to "alpha i386".
> Then Roman Hodek complained because there isn't anything preventing the
> library and the editor from working on other architectures.
> So, what should I do? I have changed the architecture field to "any" but
> I don't know if this is correct...
> In my opinion the packaging manual should talk about the rationale for
> architecture field.
> Please, see bug 50319.
> Thanks and sorry for my poor english.
Say "Architecture: any" if it contains compiled binaries and
"Architecture: all" if it doesn't. You'll soon get bug reports if it
fails on another architecture, and you'll need to fix that.
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/