On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 10:38:52 +0300, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > >... > > Improve dpkg to support partial arch. I volonteer to implement none arch > > but i am waiting from guillem here. > >... > > There is also plenty of infrastructure on the buildd, archive and > release team sides that would likely need changes for supporting > anything like that. > > A multilib based approach might be more realistic for bookworm. > > What benefits would a "none arch" even bring compared to building > binary-all packages? > The ability to binNMU is the only one that comes into my mind. IMO the main benefit of using multiarch would be that packages could be built for the new architectures without changes (ideally). libz is currently built for MinGW-w64 in an “Architecture: all” package, but it’s a separate source package; various other libraries are built with specific support in their source packages. While one could imagine adding support to all the appropriate source packages to build similar “Architecture: all” packages, that would require convincing all the relevant maintainers, and it would end up tying the testing migrations to MinGW-w64... In this scenario the solution wouldn’t be a “none” arch, but a Windows arch, if we can ever resolve https://bugs.debian.org/606825 The buildd situation isn’t necessarily that much of an obstacle: it seems to me we could have “Windows” buildds which are really Linux amd64 systems, that cross-build for Windows. Regards, Stephen
Attachment:
pgp5KgIS8_AuW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature