Re: Do autopkgtest for non-listed architectures prevent migration?

[Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org>]

Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> writes:
> If the package builds on the 32bit arches then I would advise that you
> let it build.  We always try to build for all arches in debian and it
> is very annoying if you have say an armhf machine and something is not
> available just because there was some test failure so upstream simply
> excluded builds completely. Packges should only be excluded on an arch
> if they are known not to build or to be genuinely useless there.

I would disagree here: If we can't support a certain package on a
platform, then we shouldn't build it there. If neither upstream nor the
Debian maintainer is going to support armhf, then it should not be built.

For example, I have a package (iraf) that builds fine on big-endian
systems but some tests fail there. I (being both upstream and the Debian
maintainer) am not going for a bug hunt since I don't see a use in it,
but I know that the existing bug may make some astronomical calculations
(unnoticed) wrong. It is better not not have that package than a buggy
package. If someone needs it, they are free to fix the problems so that
we include it but unless nobody cares I will not deliver a known-buggy
package by just disabling the failing tests.

> If the package is available then maybe someone who cares will fix
> it. If it isn't they probably won't even try. A note in the
> Debian.README about this known issue would be helpful.

This is only true if the bug is noticed, which is not always the
case.

Best

Ole