* Philipp Kern [Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:39:33PM +0200]: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:52:42PM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > I thought I recalled porters being annoyed by having packages > > limited to specific archs (I remember to have had such discussions > > in the past for a different package) and thought that > > Packages-arch-specific would avoid that. > Well, the assumption is that the package won't suddenly build if it gets > removed from P-a-s, given that it checks architectures in configure. Right. > P-a-s used to document rationales and had an influence on statistics. > And the maintainer should ensure that a package builds on as much > architectures as possible. P-a-s could in theory serve as an indicator > that a package needs porting if it relies on a specific feature (like > getcontext, so that packages can be removed if the toolchain suddenly > supports the feature). > But as soon as the package is inherently arch-specific, you've lost. And > I think that's the case here then. I see, thanks for the clarification! > (Maybe that should be documented somewhere.) That would be nice :) regards, -mika-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
