On 2026-06-07 Paul Gevers <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > On Sun, 3 May 2026 13:52:20 +0200 Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> wrote: > > is there a workaround for this nowadays?
> Yes, it's documented in dev-ref, section 5.12.1 [1] last bullet point: > """ > When you can't support your package on a particular architecture, you > shouldn't use the Architecture field to reflect that (it's also a pain to > maintain correctly). If the package fails to build from source, you can just > let it be and interested people can take a look at the build logs. If the > package would actually build, the trick is to add a Build-Depends on > `unsupported-architecture [the-not-supported-arch]`. The buildds will not > build the package as the build dependencies are not fulfilled on that arch. > To prevent building on 32-bits architectures, the `architecture-is-64-bit` > build dependency can be used, as `architecture-is-little-endian` can be used > to prevent building on big endian systems. > """ [...] Hello Paul, Thanks for the pointer. This only works if no binary packages should be built for a specific architecture. In my my case (pinentry) only the qt-package should be dropped on i386, the other binaries should be (auto)built. cu Andreas -- "You people are noisy," Nia said. I made the gesture of agreement.
