Re: Architecture restrictions and arch: all binary packages
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:58:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello folks,
> I'm working on the next release of the OpenAFS packages, and I'd really
> like to resolve a long-standing annoyance to the buildds that the package
> at present currently causes. But I'm not sure the best way to do it.
> Of the architectures that Debian supports, OpenAFS does not support arm,
> m68k, mips, or mipsel. It's unlikely that it will in the forseeable
> future; it requires a kernel component and no one seems to be working on
> Right now, therefore, the buildds for those four platforms try to build
> every OpenAFS release, install all its dependencies, and then error out in
> the configure script.
So your package correctly fails to build on unsupported architectures.
The only problem is wasting buildd time on it -- in this case, the
correct course of action would be to ask the Packages-arch-specific
file maintainers to include this fact.
> There was one suggestion in the bug log from Goswin von Brederlow:
> | 1. Build-Depend/Conflict on the architecture
> | Build-Depends: type-handling
> | Build-Conflicts: mips, mipsel, ia64
> | That way an attempt to build on an unsuported architecture will fail
> | with a Build-Conflict.
> but in addition to seeming like kind of a hack, I'm not sure that this
> will do anything other than produce a better error message. I'd certainly
> like to produce a better error message, and will do that if all else fails
> (although I'm not sure this is the best mechanism to do so), but isn't
> there any way to tag the package so that the buildds won't even try?
Yes, see above -- and indeed this is a terrible hack I certainly won't
suggest -- your package fails with a reasonably sensible error message
(kernel modules not supported) now, rather than just dependency issues
which make it unclear at first for potential what type of porting issue
is over here.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)