Bug#949258: debian-policy: Support negated architecture specifications in debian/control Architecture field
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.2
Severity: normal
Hello,
I didn't find a previous discussion on this: it would be useful to
support negated architecture specifications in the debian/control
Architecture field, so that we can e.g. write:
Architecture: !s390 !s390x
(for xorg stuff)
Architecture: !hppa !hurd-any !kfreebsd-any
(for java stuff)
and even things like
Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any !hppa !m68k-any
which would be understood as [ (linux-any or kfreebsd-any) and not hppa
and not m68k-any ]. I.e. if no positive specification is set, an "any"
positive specification is assumed.
That would help to remove quite a few entries of
https://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/experimental/Packages-arch-specific
and avoid packages with some java bits to have to hardcode the list of
ports on which java jni bindings packages should be built.
I guess support would be needed in dpkg, lintian, etc.
Samuel
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'proposed-updates-debug'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'oldstable-proposed-updates-debug'), (500, 'oldstable-proposed-updates'), (500, 'oldoldstable'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'buildd-experimental'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
debian-policy depends on no packages.
Versions of packages debian-policy recommends:
ii libjs-sphinxdoc 1.8.5-5
Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
pn doc-base <none>
-- no debconf information
--
Samuel
<i> ben oui ce serait idiot, mais osb
-+- m'en fous de faire un truc débile ! -+-
Reply to: