On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 07:46:34PM +0200, Sascha Steinbiss wrote: > Hi, > > > Do you think we should wait for this to be fixed? As I said before I (just > > > from my practical point of view) would be in favor of just removing the > > > problematic architectures.
> > I have no opinion on this. But if you want the package to be releasable, > > you will need to change it so that it is not building a (completely broken > > and useless) package on armhf, then get agreement with the ftp team to > > remove the existing armhf binaries. > Yes, sure. Will file RM bugs right after an upload disabling the builds. > BTW, since you seem to be knowledgeable in the matter, can you think of any > other architectures I would need to exclude here other than armhf? Just to > ensure that I remove a sensible list of affected archs and reduce potential > rounds of additional RMs... The other architectures where alignment matters are all obsolete architectures in Debian. (alpha, hppa, powerpc, sparc are the ones that come to mind.) This could be an issue for running armel binaries on an arm64 CPU, but I don't see any reason why someone would do that. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
