Thank you Santiago for the fast handling. Le lun. 26 mai 2025 à 13:17, Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> a écrit : > ifeq (,$(shell grep -xi 'Package: autotools-dev' debian/control))
Ho I misread the boolean logic here. I thought this whole blurb only applied for autotools-dev. I did a lot of tests but never with arm64 architecture. > I see that the package is orphaned. I'm going to act conservatively > and revert the change completely. There will be plenty of time after > trixie for such kind of optimizations. These little tweakings of a few lines of makefiles are really hard to get right for little gain. A more effective way to sunset CDBS with less risk is to remove all usage of the .mk modules one at the time. We got qmake.mk done just in time for Trixie. java.mk or gnome.mk could be next. I do wonder about one thing: did all these packages that were built with 0.4.172 built correctly ? What could be the more subtle defects brought in by an outdated config.sug/guess. I'm pretty confident for the 80% of users of CDBS which are Haskell packages with a very formulaic an streamlined d/rules (all living in a monorepo, easy to machine-read); it's more about the non Haskell packages. Would a mass binNMU be required for those ? Could these be selected with UDD for all uploads between two dates (then and now). Greetings Alexandre
