Re: when can a package be made architecture-dependent?
"Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@ab-initio.mit.edu> writes:
> 2. Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any''
> unless the upstream package is intrinsically unportable
> (e.g. a program to disable a Pentium CPU ID). If the package
> is theoretically portable, even if it currently fails to build on
> some architectures, it should be set to architecture any/all to
> open a path for future porters. Setting your architecture to
> ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
In your case, you *were* able to build the package for powerpc, and it
seems to work, so in this case I would agree that the package should
make the changes you suggest and add PowerPC to the list (possibly
just going all the way and making it 'any').
But I do think this goes too far. There might be good reasons why the
upstream maintainers or debian maintainers are unable to maintain a
ported package -- notably, if the upstream were not willing to take
patches for building in other architectures.
OTOH -- I do agree in principle. If you reword this slightly and file
as a wishlist on developers-reference I think I can add what you
want....
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: