Hi Bastian, Thank you for your answer: it is crystal clear! As I wrote to you, I: 1. Uploaded on Wednesday (April 27) the corrected versions of odr- dabmux (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmux/) and odr-dabmod (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-dabmod/) 2. Removed the moreinfo tag on odr-dabmux (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1009867) and odr- dabmod (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010004) Assuming I did everything correctly, is there anything else I must do to have these 2 packages pushed to the NEW queue (like what was done with odr-padenc)? Or is it the sponsor/you who pushes the packages to the NEW queue by closing the above 2 bugs (1009867 and 1010004) ? Kind regards. -- Robin ALEXANDER Le mercredi 27 avril 2022 à 14:41 +0200, Bastian Germann a écrit : > Am 27.04.22 um 14:13 schrieb Robin ALEXANDER: > > I now have 1 question. When I built these packages, debuild > > generated > > the xxx_amd64.changes files. Why do I have "amd64" in the filename > > (I > > understand it relates to the X86_64 architecture)? > > For your information, the source is mainly C++ based and it > > compiles > > properly under arm64 and arm/v7 as well. Should I have ran debuild > > in a > > different manner or is it going to be taken care of by the debian > > packaging process later on? > > You caompiled the package on a x86_64 PC, so that behaviour and your > use of debuild is okay. > When you set "Architecture: any" on a binary package, the buildd > network will try to compile the package on every > Debian-supported architecture and kernel, which includes armel, > armhf, and arm64.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part