Le dim. 12 sept. 2021 à 13:44, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> a écrit : > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 01:18:11PM +0000, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > Le dim. 12 sept. 2021 à 07:38, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> a écrit : > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > > >... > > > > Improve dpkg to support partial arch. I volonteer to implement none arch > > > > but i am waiting from guillem here. > > > >... > > > > > > There is also plenty of infrastructure on the buildd, archive and > > > release team sides that would likely need changes for supporting > > > anything like that. > > > > > > A multilib based approach might be more realistic for bookworm. > > > > > > What benefits would a "none arch" even bring compared to building > > > binary-all packages? > > > The ability to binNMU is the only one that comes into my mind. > > we have at least 3 architectures that need uefi none arch... > > > > So we build three arch-all package with paterning name. > > I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to do. > > What release architecture would "none" packages be in the Debian > archive, and on what buildds would they be built? > > Debian buildds are not cross-compiling packages for a different Debian > architecture, a partial architecture would still require DSA-maintained > buildds doing native building on this partial architecture.
I think you misunderstand: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/FreestandingArches They are a full color gradiant between: - freestanding arches pure cross compile without any depends except arch:all - partial cross built arch - partial arch - full arch I believe the first step to get partial cross built arch is to begin by freestanding arch. Bastien > cu > Adrian
