Re: StrongARM tactics
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.
>> 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.
Makes no sense to include a source not for this arch.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: