Re: rust-*/librust-* arch:any vs. arch:all and cross-compilation support

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Fabian" == Fabian Grünbichler <debian@fabian.gruenbichler.email> writes:
    Fabian> All in all it seems to me like the problem currently is more
    Fabian> a theoretical one - it doesn't seem to cause (much, if at
    Fabian> all) additional breakage on top of stuff that is already not
    Fabian> cross compilable at the moment for other reasons. It does
    Fabian> seem like a step in the wrong direction though.

It seems like if a librust-* package depended on some system library it
had a binding for, that's going to be a problem once the binding
generation works cross-compiled.  Because if I'm understanding correctly
once you manage to get onto the wrong architecture's dependencies, you
will continue to use the wrong architecture.

So, I'd like to be able to say use arch all packages except for the
things that will break if they are not arch all.
But  it sounds like you'd need to make the transitive **reverse
dependencies** arch any as well, and that's a complete mess.

So, it seems like options are:

1) Decide that we'll wait until dpkg to improve for rust to be cross
compilable

or

2) decide that arch any is needed.

However, adding a question to the mix, why does arch all work for go
packages?
Do they not care about cross compilation, or are concerns somehow
different there?

--Sam