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.