On Sunday 12 August 2007 19:13:38 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:43:27PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > Won't this then prevent the package from migrating to testing, because > > it's arch: any, but failing to build on a release arch? > > "and remove the binaries from unstable." The criterion for migration to > testing is *not*, and never has been, that the package build on > architectures; the criterion is that the package must not have any > out-of-date binaries in unstable, which can be dealt with by 1) making > sure the package builds on all architectures, 2) getting the ftp team to > agree to remove the out-of-date binaries, or 3) ensuring in advance that > the package never gets built on architectures where it doesn't belong. Ah, okay. The package in question does have an out-of-date binary that previously built without problems (but AFAICT doesn't actually work). > This is a proxy for the requirement that packages be supported "on as > many architectures as is reasonably possible." If the package is not > supported on a given architecture, the binaries of that package for the > architecture in question should not be in the archive (and particularly, > not in testing), but it is *not* the role of the testing migration > scripts to make decisions about whether a package is supported for an > architecture, only to ensure consistency between architectures. The > decision of whether a package is supported is one that has to be made by > the package maintainer and the porters. Thanks all for the tips and clarification. I believe I know how to proceed sanely now. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <xmpp:email@example.com> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.