Re: new rustc targets that don't match Debian architectures
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025, at 11:24 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 04:27:08PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/28/25 2:24 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>> > > There is significant established practice for using arch:all in this
>> > > way.
>>
>> > Which is not particularly relevant when building an architecture
>> > ecosystem in arch:all would prevent providing security support.
>>
>> The way I understand it, the problem isn't the arch:all, but the static
>> linking.
>>
>> Sourceful uploads to fix an issue are unproblematic, because they generate
>> new arch:all packages anyway.
>>
>> The worst case we need to look at is that we need to rebuild all dependent
>> packages,
>>...
>
> How do you generate and sign potentially hundreds or thousands of
> sourceful uploads for these dependent packages?
thanks, now I understand your concerns much better!
if we reach a point where we have hundreds or thousands of packages building
for WASM or BPF targets, then yes, we need a solution. I think that solution
would/should go more in the direction of moving them to a partial architecture,
or fixing arch:all binNMUs (/automating source no-change bumps), rather than
pretending those packages are all arch-specific and duplicating them across
all archs to allow binNMUing them..
I suspect the number of such packages will be tiny for forky, and still rather
small for duke.
Reply to: