Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information.
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:41:03PM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> 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
> that architecture.
> 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.
a) send the bugs upstream. The upstream authors are usually very helpful
b) tell the bug reporter that you don't know how or can't fix the bug.
They might take the time to fix it.
c) email debian-devel with the problem, someone else with access to the
problemtatic arch might try to fix it.
Do _not_ reduce the severity of build bugs for ports. It is like saying
that they are not important and only i386 is significant enough to worry
about builds on.
Do _not_ set architecture fields to cover portability bugs in packages.
Remember that _you_ decided to maintain the package, and by doing so take
responsiblity for it's stability and portability to Debian's supported
I do agree that the Architecture field setting needs to be clarified.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` firstname.lastname@example.org - email@example.com - firstname.lastname@example.org '