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

[Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org>]

Hi Helge,

Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> writes:
> That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't exclude by default a *specific*
> architecture. The problem is often not bound to that architecture, but by
> the specifics which define that architecture (endianess, 32/64-bit, ...).

this brings me to the point why we don't have a way to require these
specifics in a canonical way, i.e. why we don't have (pseudo) packages
for endianess, word width etc.

For example I observe more and more (astronomy/science) packages to be
64-bit only by design (or upstream decision), and there is no way to
clearly specify this as a build condition. Just ignoring this and let
them fail doesn't look very smart.

Best

Ole