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