On Fri Jan 3, 2025 at 5:44 AM CET, Niels Thykier wrote: > Package: developers-reference > Severity: wishlist > X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net > > The section 5.10.4 is about packages that are not portable to all > architectures. Here it talks about changing the `Architecture` line and > `Packages-arch-specific` as possible ways. > > I think we should add a mention of `architecture-properties` next to > `Architecture`. Maybe something like: > > """ > Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is > pretty constant, you should change any to a list of supported > architectures in debian/control or add a Build-Depends on one of the > `architecture-properties` provided names such as > `architecture-is-64-bit`. This way, the build will not be performed on > the relevant architectures, and indicate this to a human reader. > """
I found the use of 'relevant' (architectures) confusing as both supported/ported and unsupported/'unported' architectures are relevant. So maybe using 'unsupported' (or 'unported') would be better? Cheers, Diederik
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
