Re: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 16:50 +0200 8/11/02, Russell Coker wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35, Geert Stappers wrote:
>> When the cause of the buildproblem is in the package, fix the problem
>> there. The package maintainer hasn't to do it by himself,
>> he can/must/should cooperate with people of other architectures.
>> A sign like "!hurd-i386" looks to me like "No niggers allowed",
>> it is not an invitation to cooperation.
>
>So you think I should keep my selinux packages as architecture any, even
>though they will never run on on HURD or BSD?
>
>What about the Trusted BSD support packages? If Trusted BSD gets support on
>multiple BSD architectures then should it be listed as architecture any even
>though it will never compile on Linux?
Hi Russell,
To answer your question the rude way: YES!
We are talking in 'debian-mentors@lists.debian.org'.
When some smartie reports here
"My package doesn't build on arch foo,
I want to do an exclude of arch foo",
then the answer shouldn't be
"just list the supported archs"
Put in the Debian control source file the arch any, if it should build a
binary.
"Archictecture: all", if not a binary ( documentation or scripts )
But that will sound familair for us.
Even if you have a good reason to limit/cripple the number of architectures,
you should NOT do it.
Linus had in his early years only one single architecture in mind.
Please think bigger as Linus, learn at least from his estimate mistake.
Back to
>So you think I should keep my selinux packages as architecture any, even
>though they will never run on on HURD or BSD?
>
>What about the Trusted BSD support packages? If Trusted BSD gets support on
>multiple BSD architectures then should it be listed as architecture any even
>though it will never compile on Linux?
"Never say never again", so IMNSHO it is a temporary problem.
When there is a change in the architectures, packages should benefit from it.
Limited/crippled packages wouldn't, all of those will need manual attention.
I can imagine that you wanna be friendly to the auto-build process. If that is
the reason for limitting/crippling the architectures for the time being,
please tell it.
Could it be that you are missing a "Succesfull-Arch:" item in the control file?
It is a optional item.
If it not exists the arch is all, auto-builder will start.
If is exists, the auto-builder will use this discriminator.
The package maintainer collects the succesfull build reports, and adds them
to the item.
Mayby it should a new file in the debian directory,
the content will be the PGP signed succes report.
It is just an idea.
You have my permission to take it to debian-devel.
Geert Stappers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj1Wt1EACgkQ91HXn1UReY/uSgCfUi1nxMsEfN0cCgrFuofKsj0A
t5oAoInuS4gmKqYdPiW2DlWwOndSMUe+
=j+Zv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Geert
Reply to: