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

Re: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?

Geert Stappers <Geert.Stappers@xs4all.nl> writes:

> When the cause of the buildproblem is a missing library,
> then the problem will be fixed by adding the lib.

You're correct that this is usually no reason for frobbing the
Architecture field. (Build-)Depends fully suffice, and have the bonus
of making a package instantly buildable (without human intervention)
once a dependency becomes available.

Just because you think a particular library will not be ported to an
arch, does not mean nobody does it. Who would have thought that people
would port GTK+ to Windows?

> 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.

I don't think your metaphor is sound. No package in main is able to
forbid people to try building it (or fixing it so it does) on
GNU/Hurd, M$ Windows, CP/M or what have you. The Architecture is just
a hint! Perhaps a more suitable comparison is printing "not useful for
dark-skinned people" on sunblocker tubes.

One type of package you forgot about are those that work only on
particular arches by design. I'm quite convinced that procps either
compiles out of the box on the Hurd or could be modified quite easily
to do. It would still be useless, though, unless someone wrote a /proc
translator first. And there's already a GNU "ps", so why do that?

Various other kernel related packages come to mind: modutils, ALSA,
nfs-kernel-server, ... Blindly porting everything can be narrow
vision, too.


Attachment: signature.ng
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: