Hi Ok, p-a-s means Packages-arch-specific, as Paul Wise explained. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 06:43:19AM +0200, Laurent Guignard wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:25:46 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > 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? Ok, thanks for the explaiaintion. I tried to search in the policy regarding that, but didn't find it at the moment, but will check again with your hint. I'm also only at the beginning. Indeed the question is not only "hippotetical", since such a question affects one of my packages. So I wondered what Cyril Brulebois meant exaclty, since I didn't understand exactly. Kind regards Salvatore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature