Re: Let's remove mips, mipsel, s390 ... [or have strict arch: control? ]
- To: Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com>
- Cc: Peter Samuelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Let's remove mips, mipsel, s390 ... [or have strict arch: control? ]
- From: Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:12:16 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20050301071216.GA17053@grep.be>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20050221191319.GB21350@bignachos.com> <loom.20050222T035900firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050222120353.GE31550@grep.be> <20050227160814.GL17034@killingmoon.htu.pe> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050228104254.GP13154@p12n.org> <email@example.com> <20050228215143.GC26986@grep.be> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:28:58AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Peter Samuelson <firstname.lastname@example.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?
Such packages need to make sure their initial control file contains
enough information about the architectures a package can be built on
anyway if they want dpkg-buildpackage to run successfully.
> I see the Arch check of the dsc file in line 742-484 but that is very
> unreliable. Anything I missed?
Haven't looked at the source, only know the behaviour when a
foreign architecture's package's build is attempted. Something like
Architecture not in control file: i386 -- skipped
> >> 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.
'some', rather than 'a lot'; but apart from that, correct.
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
-- with thanks to fortune