Tobias Frost, le lun. 12 sept. 2022 18:36:09 +0200, a ecrit: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 05:11:46PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Tobias Frost, le lun. 12 sept. 2022 16:08:08 +0200, a ecrit: > > > The problem is that if you want to exclude an arch explicitly, you have to > > > list all archs you want to build it on. IOW, I'm missing an easy way to > > > say > > > "not on THIS architecture", somthing like "[!armel]" > > > > Yes, but see below. > > > > > There are a few packages I take care of which make trouble on some archs > > > or > > > simply do not make much sense to run on those low-end archs. > > > > If they make trouble, I would say just let the package FTBFS there. > > Well, it compiles there… Of course I could fail it artifically, but that > isn't something I would say it would be appropiate.
That may still be more informative than hardcoding an Architecture list? I happen to be doing that in sphinxbase actually: https://salsa.debian.org/a11y-team/sphinxbase/-/blob/master/debian/rules#L30 > > > I was spending siginifant time in the past weeks on such a package, to fix > > > autopkgtests issues specific to that arch -- unsuccessfully, I disabled > > > the > > > tests in the end --, > > > > Is it possible to get the same test be performed during package build > > time? That way, it will be just not built, not shipped, and the state > > will be clear on the buildd status page, and you can move on to more > > useful work. For instance in my pocketsphinx package case: > > Would do that if it would be possible; The tests won't run properly without > the > data installed properly. Ok, so it's a corner case we were discussing on debian-ports indeed. Samuel
