Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

[Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 15:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> 
> > The statistics and graphs available on the debian-ports page[1] may
> > provide some objective statistics or reflection on the actual
> > suitability of your architecture's continued inclusion.
> >  [1]: https://buildd.debian.org/stats/
> 
> Such statistics are really difficult to get any real conclusion from.
> Sometimes 10% packages are missing just for one tricky nonLinux-specific
> issue in one package.

Correct: One example is cmake for both hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-any.
It does not even have to be tricky. For kfreebsd the patch(es) is attached
below!

Index: cmake-3.11.2/bootstrap
===================================================================
--- cmake-3.11.2.orig/bootstrap
+++ cmake-3.11.2/bootstrap
@@ -1352,7 +1352,7 @@ else
       libs="${libs} -ldl -lrt"
       ;;
     *BSD*)
-      libs="${libs} -lkvm"
+      libs="${libs} -lkvm -lfreebsd-glue"
       ;;
     *SunOS*)
       # Normally libuv uses '-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -std=c90' on Solaris 5.10,

--- a/debian/control	2018-05-19 10:51:17.000000000 +0200
+++ b/debian_control	2018-07-29 17:38:11.272777000 +0200
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
                librhash-dev,
                libuv1-dev (>= 1.10),
                procps [!hurd-any],
+               freebsd-glue [kfreebsd-any],
                python3-sphinx,
                qtbase5-dev <!stage1>,
                zlib1g-dev