[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:52:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> ucko@debian.org (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:

> >> > Thomas Viehmann <tv@beamnet.de> writes:

> >> >> +pcsx: i386							     # i386 assembly

> >> > AFAICT, this is only because its Linux/Makefile forces CPU to ix86
> >> > unconditionally.

> >> Write patch. At a minimum the package should be "i386 amd64". In
> >> general anything with "Arch: i386" should add amd64.

> > And is that certain to give a working 64-bit binary on amd64, or are you
> > suggesting that we ship extra copies of 32-bit binaries for both i386 and
> > amd64?

> The later if the former is not working. Since we have no multiarch yet
> and acceptance of patches leading up to it is going very slowly it
> looks like etch will remain without multiarch. So we need the extra
> copy to have something working.

And for this you want to add hackish patches to console emulator packages?
I think the amd64 port can live for a while without a Playstation emulator
while we sort out how to cope with cross-installing of i386 packages.

> >> Also pcsx should not be in P-A-S (and isn't on cvs.d.o) because:
> ...
> >> wanna-build already filters the Architecture field of sources.

> Small correction, quinn-diff does the actual filtering (here).

> > No, it does not.  It goes to the buildds with every sourceful upload, and
> > fails when sbuild checks the architecture list.

> Hmm, must be just me then. Here quinn-diff already filters it out so
> it doesn't reaches wanna-build itself. But that might just be one of
> the several small differences to the official buildd suite.

> mrvn@storage:~/t% quinn-diff 2>&1 | grep pcsx
> [quinn-diff]: ignoring: pcsx has an architecture field of "i386" which
> doesn't include amd64.

Right; it is quinn-diff that does the filtering; and the quinn-diff on
buildd.d.o does not filter on the package-provided Architecture: list.

> Makes no sense to include a source not for this arch.

On the contrary, I think it's a bad idea for quinn-diff to look at package
Architecture: fields directly, just like it would be a bad idea for dak to
let maintainers change Section: values directly.  You want porter oversight
of the list of packages that are being excluded on an arch, and having these
show up as build failures gives you that oversight.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: