On 2017-12-20 12:05 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > in spring several packages from Debian Med team received "FTBFS on i386: > unsatisfiable build-dependencies" bug reports > Yes, there are packages that do not build on a certain > architecture due to missing Build-Depends. I could exclude these > architectures from the list of architectures in d/control. However, as > far as I understood that's rather a bad idea since once the > Build-Depends might become available the package could easily build. Correct. > So as far as I see #860655 there is no sensible means to fix it properly > and I'm tempted to close it (since I also do not see any sense in > tagging it wontfix). Leaving it open wontfix makes it easy for someone to find the issue in the future and see what decision was made and why, and that the current situation is as correct as we can currently make it. But closing is also OK IMHO. The reasoning will still get archived. > May be it needs to be said that we do not have the > manpower to fix each and every piece of code to make sure all > Build-Depends build on every architecture neither does it make sense > technically to for instance have gene sequencing software on outdated > hardware available. Some code just needs 64 bit and upstream will not > support other hardware. If code will not actually build or run on 32-bit systems then it's reasonable to mark it as not for those arches, but if it could, or might (we don't know yet), even if you think it would be uselessly slow, I'd leave the option open (i.e. allow the package to build if all the build-deps are available). > Am I missing something? Not that I can see. You understand the situation. One of the good things about debian is the availablity of software for many architectures. We shouldn't restrict that any more than we have to. As a porter I notice quite a few packages where the maintainer has made things 'tidy' by giving an explicit architecture list when really the unlisted ones were really just 'doesn't build there yet, or arch is new since I made the list', so making such a list was unhelpful. Often they really wanted to make a 'doesn't build on arch foo' list but we didn't have a mechanism for that (that's still not fixed SFAIK). So not giving a list at all is good if it can be avoided. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature