Re: Let's remove mips, mipsel, s390 ... [or have strict arch: control? ]

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> writes:
>> 
>> > [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> >> Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
>> >> architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
>> >> the Architecture: line.
>> >
>> > I suppose it'd be nice to be able to use !foo in the Architecture: line
>> > for cases where something is known not to be supportable on a
>> > particular small subset of arches, through toolchain bugs or whatever.
>> 
>> As a sidenote, wanna-build and buildd completly ignore the
>> architecture line (apart from arch:all) and build packages anyway.
>
> Well, somewhat :-)
>
> they /attempt/ the build. sbuild will detect that it is not actually a
> package for this architecture, and will break it off right when the
> source package is extracted.

It does? How does that work for packages with only a minimal control
file that generate a full contol file during build? I see the Arch
check of the dsc file in line 742-484 but that is very unreliable.
Anything I missed?

I believe the dpkg behaviour to set "Architecture: any" for sources
that build arch dependent and independent packages (as opposed to
e.g. Architecture: all i386 powerpc) makes it impossible to reliably
decide if a package should be build for an arch.

>> Anything in the control file is purely informative to the buildd admin
>> at this point.
>
> No, sbuild does check more things.

Ok, slightly exagerated, but a lot of packages would get build by sbuild
wrongfully if it weren't for packages-arch-specific in wanna-build.

MfG
        Goswin