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

Re: packages expected to fail on some archs


Am 11.09.22 um 22:07 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
on these archs (and then possibly succeeding after some time whenever
somebody contributes a fix upstream that gets propagated to Debian).
I'd say it is the best solution when a package needs non-trivial
architecture-specific porting for every architecture it supports.

With "non-trivial" I mean not just adding a new architecture to a few
#ifdefs, but serious upstream porting efforts. E.g. valgrind does not
support riscv64, and if it would ever gain the support in a new upstream
version I'd expect the maintainer to add that to the Architecture field
when upstream announces support for a new architecture.

As a maintainer of such package I agree.

I would not like it to fail when it is known that it won't work. Ever.

Unless someone actually writes the matching asm part, knowing the ABI and calling convetions, etc.



Reply to: