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

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

On 2011-08-29, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> writes:
>> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 29 Aug 2011 16:49:17 +0200, a écrit :
>>> Those packages should be set Not-For-Us anyway, no? So they still need
>>> an action from porters or buildd maintainers.
>> We want to avoid Not-For-Us. Maintainers should simply set the
>> architecture list.
> Does this work now?  Previously, setting the architecture list didn't do
> anything useful if the source package built at least one arch: all
> package.

Policy says this:

766a66d2 (Manoj Srivastava 2005-06-16 05:43:33 +0000  3015) <p>
8ec4f17a (Russ Allbery     2010-06-01 15:47:48 -0700  3016)   Specifying a list of architectures or architecture wildcards
8ec4f17a (Russ Allbery     2010-06-01 15:47:48 -0700  3017)   indicates that the source will build an architecture-dependent
8ec4f17a (Russ Allbery     2010-06-01 15:47:48 -0700  3018)   package, and will only work correctly on the listed or
8ec4f17a (Russ Allbery     2010-06-01 15:47:48 -0700  3019)   matching architectures.  If the source package also builds at
8ec4f17a (Russ Allbery     2010-06-01 15:47:48 -0700  3020)   least one architecture-independent package, <tt>all</tt> will
8ec4f17a (Russ Allbery     2010-06-01 15:47:48 -0700  3021)   also be included in the list.
e7a3eb89 (Manoj Srivastava 2005-06-16 05:40:10 +0000  3022) </p>

And actually I requested that change in dpkg before policy was adjusted.  (My
bad, didn't know it better at that time.)  So yeah, that's checked by
wanna-build since some time already.

Also I just saw that buxy committed the "any all" change to policy, which is
nice and will finally tell us which packages need arch:all building at all.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Reply to: