On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 09:56:01AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Colin Watson wrote... > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:52:15PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > > That's a good theoretical argument. But in practice, I think the subset > > > of architectures for which bar works correctly will always include > > > amd64, and John D. Rebuilder will have access to such a box for sure. > > > > We know this not to have been the case in the past. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/217427 mentions the cases of > > palo (hppa), openhackware (powerpc), and openbios-sparc (sparc). > > (People often suggest cross-compiling for this, and that can certainly > > be a good solution in some cases, but please bear in mind that in the > > general case that still only reduces the problem to "can only build on > > architectures where somebody's uploaded the necessary cross tools".) > > That's a slightly different scenario since I'm just about to rebuild > arch:all packages, so there's no need for cross tools.
Right, I was just pre-emptively addressing something people often suggest. > > There is currently one package in the Debian archive (pixfrogger) that > > declares "Build-Indep-Architecture: i386" in its .dsc because, even > > though it builds an architecture-independent binary package, building it > > requires a package that's only available on 32-bit architectures. > > *That* is really helpful as it provides a generic solution for my > problem: The maintainer can provide an architecture hint for any > rebuilder. Is there a more formal specification around? I understand > the comment in the diff[0] the header may carry a list of > architectures, not just just a single one. That's the right thing. > > [0] > http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/stable/revision/17338/lib/lp/soyuz/tests/test_build_set.py I don't know. CCing William and Steve since maybe they do. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
