Re: ia64/unstable: FTBFS: needs ocamlopt
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages
> >> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked.
> >
> > Because that's what dpkg-buildpackage -B does, and what buildds use.
> >
> >> But even admitting this is due to some buildd weirdness, I'm not getting
> >> why the bugs have been reported. Aren't they bogus?
> >
> > They are.
>
> Well, not really. As long as a package is not in P-a-s on that
> architecture it's still a bug either because it has to be added to P-a-s
> or because it should build on that architecture (eventually after adding
> support).
Lamont,
Since you are listed as one of the maintainers of Packages-arch-specific (last
edited on 2008/04/15 16:42:48 lamont Exp $) could you please ensure that the
source packages of ara and spamoracle will *not* be autobuilt on the
following architectures:
alpha, arm, armel, hppa, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390.
The reason is that the above listed architectures don't have ocamlopt (the
native compiler) to built their arch-dependant parts. For these architectures
are provided <pkg>-byte binary packages which are arch: all and which are
built only once and run on all arches.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: