On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:23:57AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If we limit the problem to avoiding build failures in cases that
> upstream does not support, there would be the trivial solution of
> having a package ship Provides like:
> - architecture-is-64bit
> - architecture-is-32bit
> - archite
Hi
Le lun. 26 sept. 2022 à 23:42, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> If we limit the problem to avoiding build failures in cases that
> upstream does not support, there would be the trivial solution of
> having a package ship Provides like:
> - architecture-is-64bit
> - architecture-is-32bit
> - architec
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 01:38:01PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>...
> [ Mostly to summarize the status re dpkg. ]
>...
> * Lack of bits/endianness arch "aliases" (#962848). The main problem
> with this one is that we cannot simply add such aliases, as then
> those would silently be consid
Guillem Jover, le mer. 14 sept. 2022 13:38:01 +0200, a ecrit:
> Something else to consider is that, for packages that make sense
> porting, deny-listing them from building means we do not have build
> failure logs, so deciding what to port or trying to check for patterns
> becomes more costly for h
Hi!
[ Mostly to summarize the status re dpkg. ]
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 17:08:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
> the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
> on these archs (and then possibly succeedi
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:08:08PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
>...
> 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]"
>...
> I don't actual
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
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 05:11:46PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 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
Hello,
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
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:07:13PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >...
> > The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
> > the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
> > on these arc
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 23:07 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Architecture lists containing all 64bit ports or all little endian
> ports create much extra work for anyone adding support for a new
> 64bit little endian architecture.
Since dpkg already knows about the bits and endianness of ports,
perhap
Hi,
Am 11.09.22 um 22:07 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
...
The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
on these archs (and then possibly succe
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>...
> The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
> the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
> on these archs (and then possibly succeeding after some time whenever
> somebody co
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:25:40PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Paul Gevers, le dim. 11 sept. 2022 21:16:08 +0200, a ecrit:
> >
> > - color packages that "never" had a successful built on an architecture
> > different. That information is already available because that's what marks
> > the pack
Paul Gevers, le dim. 11 sept. 2022 21:16:08 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 11-09-2022 17:08, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > We could for instance:
> > - Add an Architecture-FTBFS field to debian/control
> > - Add an environment variable to debian/rules so that on these archs dh
> >fails with a different exit
Hi Samuel,
On 11-09-2022 17:08, Samuel Thibault wrote:
We could for instance:
- Add an Architecture-FTBFS field to debian/control
- Add an environment variable to debian/rules so that on these archs dh
fails with a different exit code that buildds would notice.
- Add a Architecture-FTBFS fiel
Hello,
We have been discussing a bit on #debian-ports about packages that fail
to build on less-mainstream architectures.
The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
on these archs (and then possibly s
17 matches
Mail list logo
