Abraham vd Merwe <abz@debian.org> writes:
> For instance, I have a package that can only build on the following
> architectures:
>
> i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel
#104688 states that hppa has failed. How do you know that sh can't
build it, though? Or hurd-386[1]? Or an architecture that is not even
known yet?
In summary, limiting architectures is usually the wrong answer.
> In particular I'm wondering about mips/mipsel.
These are correct. Listing /debian/dists/unstable/main/ on an
up-to-date mirror will show you the spelling of all current archs.
> Ok, now for the real question. I could do this:
>
> Architecture: i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel
>
> in my control file, but according to the debian policy manual (D.2.3), there
> can only be a single field.
Read the whole section -- for *source* packages, more than one arch is
allowed. Binaries can have only one for obvious reasons.
> Someone filed a bug report that this package doesn't compile on hppa
> and I'd like to fix this asap (See
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=104688&repeatmerged=yes
> for details on the bug report)
I don't think not compiling on hppa is a fix for this bug. You should
try to provide the missing file -- perhaps with help from the hppa
people. If it is really not solvable short-term, I consider
downgrading the bug to non-RC (important seems good) is a better
strategy. With this, your package is still eligible for "testing", and
new archs will at least /try/ to compile it.
Footnotes:
[1] Although from the nature of the package, chances are that it
really won't build on a Hurd.
--
Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature