On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:01:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Yes, lets do that. Lets drop i386 since it has no foobarf compiler > thats only available for m68k. Uhh, no, why not just upload foobarf with Architecture: m68k? Packages that nobody claims will work on a given architecture obviously shouldn't reflect poorly on the package or the port to that architecture. In fact, what we really should do is, when determining whether to consider it "bad" for a package not to build on a given architecture, is look to see if any of its dependencies have a more specific Architecture than "any". If package A depends on package B, and package B is Architecture: X,Y,Z, then package A is also implicitly Architecture: X,Y,Z, even though it may claim "any" architecture. > What you suppose would kill all architectures in unstable. (Well, > killing one could remove the offending package for another arch so some > would remain). No, it would not at all. Really. It would simply help to prohibit packages from depending on versions of another package that don't even build on all architectures *that they claim to support*. noah
Attachment:
pgpCYemK7RSYR.pgp
Description: PGP signature