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

Re: Architecture in *.dsc files

On Wednesday 27 May 2009 00:04:19 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Yu <jonathan.i.yu@gmail.com> writes:
> > This is probably a stupid question, but...
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> >> Currently, Policy's description of Architecture includes the statement:
> >>
> >>    In the main debian/control file in the source package, or in the
> >>    source package control file .dsc, one may specify a list of
> >>    architectures separated by spaces, or the special values any or all.
> >>
> >> By my reading, this says that the Architecture field may be *either* a
> >> list of architectures *or* one of any or all.  However, the current
> >> dpkg-dev appears to generate an Architecture line that includes both
> >> architectures and special values like "all".
> >
> > I'm curious, which package(s) do this? What is the idea of doing so?
> > Is it like saying, "build specially on these architectures; otherwise
> > just use 'all'"? Or am I missing the point of it completely?
> I noticed it with the openafs package, whose compiled code only works
> with a restricted set of architectures but which also includes a
> documentation package that's arch: all.
> The Architecture field in the .dsc file isn't something that the package
> is responsible for.  dpkg-dev creates it based on the Architecture
> fields in debian/control.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526617 appears to be
> the relevant change.  I have no problem with this change -- it looks
> correct to me.  It just means the Policy wording is wrong, and I'd
> rather get a definitive statement about what Policy *should* say and
> what the meaning of possible .dsc Architecture field contents are.
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Perhaps inclusive 'or' is meant here. That's the impression I get from reading 

Perhaps a footnote saying "Here 'or' is meant inclusively" should be added.


Reply to: