Re: Architecture: all versus linux-any
Hello Again,
On 27/12/13 21:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 09:02:49PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> thanks for the reply.
>
>> On 27/12/13 20:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 07:53:32PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>>>> Hello List,
>
>>>> I am maintaining a package, FireHOL not to name it, which basically
>>>> contains bash sources. So it Architecture was set up to all by one of
>>>> my predecessor. Meanwhile, kfreebsd support emerged.
>>>> As FireHOL is meant to manage iptables, it is de facto meant for linux:
>>>> http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=firehol (bottom)
>>>> Therefore, may I restrict Architecture to linux-any ?
>
>>> You *may* do so, but why bother?
>
>> Because debcheck complains.
>
> Then perhaps debcheck should be fixed.
>
>> The package already depends on the
>>> architecture-dependent iptables, and is therefore uninstallable on kfreebsd.
>>> So there doesn't seem to be any harm to having the package be Architecture:
>>> all.
>
>> Will setting Architecture to linux-all create more harm ?
>
> It will increase the size of the archive with redundant packages, for very
> little reason.
>
> In the case of firehol, the harm is small, of course. But we wouldn't want
> to do this /as a rule/. Consider the not-improbable case of a large Arch:
> all data package for a game that fails to build on kfreebsd. Should the
> data package be marked Architecture: any, so that it's not available on
> architectures where the game engine package is absent, if this would cost us
> a gigabyte (or more) of space in the archive? No, it shouldn't; which
> demonstrates that debcheck-cleanness is a wrong metric to use.
I got the point: I let Architecture to all
Thanks,
Jerome
>
Reply to: