Dear reader of debian-mentors, I read the following, following a discussion on debian-devel, which I do not understand. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:26:56PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> (14/05/2009): > > I've worked on FTBFS-with-new-GCC bugs before, and realized only after > > putting significant work into the bug that the package didn't build on > > amd64, only on i386. Therefore, I think that the package should have > > a proper list of archs that prevents this problem. P-a-s is fine for > > the buildds, but if you actually want people to volunteer to fix bugs > > on your package, you shouldn't make it harder on them. > > Which is why people are expected to: > - Make their packages FTBFS ASAP in the build system, to make it > obvious it's not intended to even be tried on $archs. > - Then get the P-a-s entry added. Could that a bit be explainend? I do not understand the following: Assuming I have a package, which I know it is only working under i386 and amd64, but has the "bug" that it builds correctly on another architecture (but is then not usable there), does this mean, that I should not put only i386 and amd64 in "Architecture" field, but instead nevertheless let "any" by in the Architechture field, but then on build time, let the build fail on say powerpc? Many thanks Salvatore btw, what "p-a-s" mean in this context?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature