Abraham vd Merwe <abz@debian.org> writes: > For instance, I have a package that can only build on the following > architectures: > > i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel #104688 states that hppa has failed. How do you know that sh can't build it, though? Or hurd-386[1]? Or an architecture that is not even known yet? In summary, limiting architectures is usually the wrong answer. > In particular I'm wondering about mips/mipsel. These are correct. Listing /debian/dists/unstable/main/ on an up-to-date mirror will show you the spelling of all current archs. > Ok, now for the real question. I could do this: > > Architecture: i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel > > in my control file, but according to the debian policy manual (D.2.3), there > can only be a single field. Read the whole section -- for *source* packages, more than one arch is allowed. Binaries can have only one for obvious reasons. > Someone filed a bug report that this package doesn't compile on hppa > and I'd like to fix this asap (See > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=104688&repeatmerged=yes > for details on the bug report) I don't think not compiling on hppa is a fix for this bug. You should try to provide the missing file -- perhaps with help from the hppa people. If it is really not solvable short-term, I consider downgrading the bug to non-RC (important seems good) is a better strategy. With this, your package is still eligible for "testing", and new archs will at least /try/ to compile it. Footnotes: [1] Although from the nature of the package, chances are that it really won't build on a Hurd. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature