severity 452022 wishlist thanks On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Version: 1.14.8 > Severity: serious
Huh ?! I know it's important for you, but that doesn't make it RC. > problem: it potentially breaks all unofficial architectures, as the > symbols for those architectures are not available on mole and may > vary a bit. This is not a justification. > This causes packages to fails to build in case of differences in the > list of symbols, and will progressively break all unofficial > architectures, even those that we want to *integrate as an official* > architecture sooner or later. You're too pessimistic IMO. If the package has debian/<package>.symbols.<arch> files then it will not fail because it won't find a symbols file for the given architecture and will thus generate a brand new one (and the comparison will only find new symbols and it will not fail). It will only fail if the package provides a debian/package.symbols file (i.e. common to all architectures) and if symbols listed in that file disappear on non-official architectures. > As already suggested, please ignore new or missing symbols on > unofficial architectures and generate a new symbols file in that case > (the current list of official architectures is: alpha amd64 arm hppa > hurd-i386 i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc). I won't harcode such a behaviour in dpkg. However what is doable is have an environment variable that will override the "check level" that that the package is using. Then you just have to make sure that the buildd of the unofficial arches define that environment variable. Does that seem reasonable? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
