Hi Guillem, Guillem Jover wrote: > This was filed some time ago.
Hrm, seem to have missed that one. > Can you present a case where using a negative specification would be > more correct than a positive one? "More correct" maybe not (not sure what "more correct" means as "correct" is boolean for me), but surely way easier to maintain since I wouldn't have to follow all new architectures which pop up occassionally: There was a time where gnudatalanguage didn't build on exactly one architecture (arm64): See https://bugs.debian.org/803552 and https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-astro/packages/gnudatalanguage.git/commit/?id=638bc9c3be31a4e5bd747f6c0f985da1afbc26ba The full architecture list reads: Architecture: any-alpha any-amd64 any-armeb any-arm any-avr32 any-hppa any-i386 any-ia64 any-m32r any-m68k any-mips any-mips64 any-mips64el any-mipsel any-or1k any-powerpc any-powerpcel any-ppc64 any-ppc64el any-s390 any-s390x any-sh3 any-sh3eb any-sh4 any-sh4eb any-sparc any-sparc64 mipsn32 mipsn32el powerpcspe x32 I had to write small script to get it done properly and found that line/commit rather tedious. And if the bug wouldn't have been fixed properly soon afterwards, I'd have had to keep that field uptodate or at least check it everytime a new architectures pops up, e.g. on Debian Ports. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
