Hej, * Edmund Grimley Evans [Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:24:54AM +0100]: > > Why I don't use "Architecture: any" in guymager is that its > > Build-Dependency libguytools2 is known to support only those > > architectures:
> > Architecture: i386 amd64 powerpc armhf arm64 > > If I'm using "Architecture: any" in guymager and it fails to build > > on those unsupported architectures then it needs extra steps to > > avoid RC bugs/autoremovals, nor? > I think it would be all right. Firstly, there is a difference between > "fails to build" and "BD-Uninstallable" (build dependencies were not > satisfied). Secondly, it is only a bug or an obstacle to migration, as > I understand it, when a package which was previously built > successfully later fails to build. If you look at > https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=arm64&suite=sid > you'll see that there are currently 90 BD-Uninstallable and 129 > Build-Attempted packages on that architecture. Click on the package > "love", then on "Tracker", and you'll see that "love", which is > "Architecture: any" but can't be built on arm64 because we don't yet > have luajit, has still successfully migrated to stable and testing on > the architectures where it can be built. So I think you can make your > package "Architecture: any" without suffering any inconvenience, and > it might be more convenient in the long run to do that. However, I am > not a DD and have never myself maintained a Debian package so I could > be wrong. Fair enough, I'll give it a try, let's see what we get. :) Thanks for your feedback. regards, -mika-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
