Re: Bug#176627: when can a package be made architecture-dependent?
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:21:55AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> This is an incorrect assumption. If the package does not build on other
> architectures, then it will *not* be kept out of testing. That will only
> happen if it built once on some architecture and then stops being
> buildable.
Ok, thanks Colin, I didn't know that (though this package was first created
around the time testing was being hashed out in any case).
> Declaring "Architecture: i386" because you haven't guaranteed yourself
> that it will build is wrong, and Debian porters have been fighting
> against this for years.
Please note this isn't a general policy of mine, but right or wrong it
did seem appropriate at least initially for this package in particular.
It targets a non-free, (essentially) i386-only OS and has been a
complete pig to build without major modification to the build layout
for almost every release. I've had no reason to believe the
autobuilders would handle it at all well, or that there would be any
interest for it on other platforms until now.
If the OP had said something like, hey this builds on PPC and I'd like
it in the archive, I'd have been much more keen to extend the arch list
immediately.
Instead he asked for (I'm tempted to say demanded) something I have no
knowledge of anyone successfully doing (and could find nothing to confirm
it would work with a google search) then threw a hissy fit about it to
-policy without any followup to me first when I asked him to provide even
minimal evidence that it wouldn't be a complete waste of everyone's time.
I'm also tempted to say typical fucking academic -- but I'd prefer not to
offend the atypical who may be reading this.
That said and done though, I'm delighted to now hear this package will
build on other arch's too, that there is support for including it there
from other developers, that there are users to make that worthwhile,
and that simply making it arch-any will not cause any other problems.
I'll change the control file for that at the next upload.
thanks,
Ron
ps. While we're nagging -policy, does anyone have an opinion on
uploading library packages built with this compiler? wxWindows,
of which I'm on the upstream team and the debian maintainer, is
perfectly capable of building msw-cross .debs. Using it, you can
write C++ apps which will compile on all our supported arch's.
wx however has two supported arch's that Debian does not. (well
three really but Beos is effectively dead, and OS/2 is trying hard
to join it). With msw-cross packages, people can also build for
that non-free OS on their linux system. Right now they have to
build/install them themselves, but I've recently got a request
from another Debian developer to have them in the archive.
Since SDL and a bunch of other things are probably capable of doing
the same, I'm not sure I want to open the floodgates and fill the
mirrors with billware-support debs. OTOH, like the mingw compiler
it helps our users get off that platform even if their users will
not. I've sounded this out on -devel and IRC a couple of times
in the past and people have been quite non-committal on the subject
either way. It would be nice to have some consensus on what I
should be telling people who ask. Any thoughts on this would be
appreciated too..
Reply to: