On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:55:37PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > >BTW; the syntax would define a single arch; you know, in the > >spirit of reproducability. > > I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, most[0] of arch:all > packages can be built on more than one architecture, so “single > arch” sounds like an artificial limitation.
You're not wrong; I'd just really hate for this to lead to a situation
where the arch:all build causes a FTBFS on ${EXOTIC_ARCH}
(HURD/kFreeBSD/MIPS) because it's assumed it works fine (I could see
something like endianess breaking things) and have it transitively break
the package (or worse yet; render data that isn't good to run)
I'd tend to lean to being explicit about where it should build (rather
then say "any" and call it a day), and have it explicitly reproducable
rather than some toss-up.
If dpkg-buildpckage doesn't care (and I don't see any reason why it
would), I'm sure it can just ignore this field and leave it as advice to
the build software.
Yeah, not great, I know :\
> On the other hand, we
> very much don't want the same arch:all package to be built by
> multiple buildds…
>
>
> [0] Likely s/Most/All/ if you take into account hypothetical
> architectures that nobody has boostrapped (yet?!), e.g.
> musl-linux-m68k.
Point taken.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
