Re: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:16, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >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!
Why?
> 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"
Please read my messages before replying. I am not talking about packages
that just happen to not compile, I am talking about packages that are
specifically designed for certain platforms only.
> Even if you have a good reason to limit/cripple the number of
> architectures, you should NOT do it.
How is it crippling to specify that packages that are specifically written
for the Linux kernel should not be compiled on BSD or Hurd?
> Linus had in his early years only one single architecture in mind.
> Please think bigger as Linus, learn at least from his estimate mistake.
Unless you're suggesting that we replace the Hurd and BSD kernels with Linux
then what you're saying makes no sense.
> >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.
It's a temporary problem that the Hurd, BSD, and Linux kernels are different?
> 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.
Even if you suddenly got the kernel code to support SE Linux on BSD or Hurd,
my packages still wouldn't work. The SE Linux policy (which is 1000 times
more work than packaging it for Debian) would not work on a system with
different names for programs and config files etc.
> 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.
That, and the fact that it makes no sense to do otherwise.
--
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.
Reply to: