Re: tuxonice-userui: can architecture be changed to linux-any ?
+++ Julien Muchembled [2015-01-01 22:15 +0100]:
> When I saw someone was using TuxOnIce on ARM[1], I wondered if the architecture could be changed to linux-any and I prepared a patch[2]
>
> However, my sponsor disagrees because such change should only be done after knowing it actually works on the added architecture, either by testing or asking upstream.
>
> I'm just so convinced to be right that I seek another opinion, so that I can move on.
>
> Originally, the architecture was 'any' and it was changed because of bug #389325 (FTBFS). Later, the problematic source file was removed so I first see no reason not to revert a change that was only done because of this.
>
> For the majority of (*-)any packages, I think upstream is unable to answer for something else that i386/amd64. Maybe also arm/powerpc, but for the other architectures, there are so few users. So by default, it looks like Debian would just check it builds.
>
> I searched a little through Git histories and the ML and could not find anything architecture-specific code. It seems that TOI is supposed to work on any machines for which classical hibernation works.
Debian packages should be built for all arches unless there is a good
reason why not (known not to build, known not supported, part of
arch-specific dependency chain).
So there is an assumption that things are 'any' by default, and only
restricted if necessary. It is not a bad thing to build packages for
arches where they are almost never used and may not even work, because
it least then it is easy for people with the necessary hardware to test.
By that reasoning this packages does indeed sound like it should be
'any'. It would have been useful to cc the sponsor who disgrees on
this mail so we can hear if there is some good reason why 'any' is in
fact not appropriate.
I suggest you file a debian bug with this patch, so that any necessary
debate will be recorded there.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: