Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information.
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 01:48:06AM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> > Package: packaging-manual
> > Version: 220.127.116.11
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Hello.
> > The packaging-manual doesn't say what is the criteria used to select the
> > architectures for a binary package.
> > For example: I am (the no official yet) maintainer of the rhtvision
> > library
> > and setedit text editor.
> > The rhtvision library was tested on i386 and alpha, then I set the
> > architecture field to "alpha i386".
> > Then Roman Hodek complained because there isn't anything preventing the
> > library and the editor from working on other architectures.
> > So, what should I do? I have changed the architecture field to "any" but
> > I don't know if this is correct...
> > In my opinion the packaging manual should talk about the rationale for
> > the
> > architecture field.
> > Please, see bug 50319.
> > Thanks and sorry for my poor english.
> Say "Architecture: any" if it contains compiled binaries and
> "Architecture: all" if it doesn't. You'll soon get bug reports if it
> fails on another architecture, and you'll need to fix that.
And how I will do to fix that bugs??? Should I buy a Sun Ultrasparc or
what? Notice that the packages cannot be fully tested over a network...
Ok, Roman told me that the porters have something like an override
file, so, if a package doesn't work for a given architecture, then they
put it in that override file, fill a bug report and don't build it for
So it is OK and I have already decided (also before sending this
wishlist bug report) to put architecture "any" in both packages.
I hope that people test the packages in the other architectures and
start reporting bugs... but I will leave the bugs open with priority
normal unless someone else correct that bugs.
Anyway, the purpose of this wishlist bugreport, is because I didn't
know that I should set the architecture to "any" noneless the packages
weren't tested on other architectures. So, I still think that this has
to be clarified in the packaging manual or policy.
Thanks for your reply, goodbye.
firstname.lastname@example.org - http://members.xoom.com/baldo - ICQ 10215364
Phone: (598) (2) 613 3223.
Caldas 1781, Malvin, Montevideo, Uruguay, South America.
(If you have problems with the previous addresses, try this ones: