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

Re: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#397058: Is this really needed?


Am Samstag, den 27.02.2010, 16:19 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of Sáb Fev 27 13:04:45 -0300 2010:
> (...)
> > Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 23:24 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> > Silva:
> > > Do you thing it worths to try a build on all architectures that doesn't have
> > > GHCi, knowing that they will fail, for all new versions of these packages, just
> > > to make sure that, when ghci works on them, they'll build too?  I don't think
> > > it's a good exchange here.
> > 
> > but it’s not what the Architecture field is for, AFAIK. The correct
> > thing to do is to have the non-working package/arch combination entered
> > in the not-for-us database of the buildd system, so that the package
> > will not be tried for building. But this is, also AFAIK, the job of the
> > porters.
> Besides it, do you think we should use any or the architecture list in the
> Architecture: field?  If the architectures are in not-for-us, the build will
> not be tried anyway, so I don't see a reason to change it to any.

I think "any" should be used unless the _usage_ of the package in
question is not restricted to a certain arch (such as boot loaders
etc.). Since that does not apply here, I guess we can use "any" in every
haskell package..

We could also just have ghc provide "ghci" on arches where it is
available, and build-depend on that. Now that I think of it, this seems
to be the cleanest solution :-)


Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply to: