Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2015-05-25 16:00:39) > But Helmut's approach only works if libfoo maintainer knows in advance > the list of architectures where libfoo-dev will be built. It can't be > applied if, say, libfoo build-depends on libbar-dev, and libbar-dev > hasn't been built everywhere. "hasn't been built" as in "the buildd's didn't get to building it for all arches yet" or as in "libbar-dev is not Architecture:any"? I'll assume the latter case for this email. In case libbar-dev is not Architecture:any but carries a certain list of architectures, src:libfoo which build-depends on libbar-dev will not be Architecture:any itself but also carry a list of architectures equal to the architectures for which libbar-dev is available, no? The exception would be if libbar-dev is optional for src:libfoo in which case libfoo-dev is built for all architectures and then there is no problem. So why would the maintainer of src:libfoo not know in advance where their source package will be built and would thus be unable to compile the correct architecture list (either manually or using an approach similar to the one used by Jonas in src:uwsgi)? cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature